Implications of Heresy

[achilles12604]

I have finally found a title which I think describes my religious views. I have created a usergroup to match. I accept many of the tenants of Christianity. I accept many of the core values and teachings. In fact let me just list them out.

I accept God exists.
I accept Jesus was his son and unique among men.
I accept that Jesus death atoned for sin.
I accept that Jesus performed miracles.
I accept that God inspired many of the writers of the bible.

Now begins my Heresy.

I accept that God inspired other great men of different faiths like Gandhi

I accept that salvation is a matter of the heart and faith is a byproduct or a symptom of the condition of this heart.

I accept that much of the bible can not be read literally

I accept that some of the stories of the bible are nothing more than stories, nor were they ever meant to be more than this.

I accept that people of other faiths have the potential for salvation just as any Christian would

I accept that the church has fallen far from where it originated.

I accept that the writings of Paul and the other disciples, while lead by God, are still personal interpretations and therefore subject to personal bias.

I do not accept the church taught concept of original sin.

I do not accept the sinlessness of Mary

I do not accept the concept of sainthoods

I do not accept that hell is a place for eternal torture in some fire lake

I accept (basically) some form of evolution/ID

I do not accept a young earth creation model.

I accept much of the current church as hypocritical and lazy

I accept that God reaches out to all men where ever they are through whatever beliefs they hold.

I accept that God knows just about everything, but can not know individual futures nor do I think this idea is supported well by scripture.









Now, I leave this WIDE open. I certainly will not take offense to anything written here. I want brutally honest opinions.

Who does not believe that my current beliefs allow for my own salvation (I am hell bound)?

Who believes that any of my current beliefs contradict another of my current beliefs?

Who here would not consider me a "true Christian"?

Which of my beliefs are directly contradicted by scripture?

What would Jesus say of my beliefs? What would you imagine him telling me?





Honesty people. Brutal, ugly, in my face, even to the point of suspending rule #1 for a moment, HONESTY

[achilles12604]

Greetings, buddy,

You seem to be denying validity of John primarily based on the late date. Again, this goes to the lack of a clear and uniform standard for applying scripture that results in one picking verses he/she likes and throwing out others. I understand there may be some question as to the last name of this John, but Revelation gives a curse/punishment to anyone who adds to or takes away from Scripture. The byproduct or fruit of this is heresy and manmade doctrines such as the sinlessness of Mary, and the notion that she was always a virgin.

Well I do reject the authority of John, but for more reasons than simply the date or even the date and the authorship. There is the internal content, the conflicts with other Gospels, the theological ax to grind, unique view of Jesus as compared to the other 3, etc.
And as for the curse in revelations, why should we accept the authority of Revelations? If you ask an atheist it is the crazy ramblings and hallucinations of an old man cast off on an island. Hardly conclusive proof. But even if Revelations should be taken seriously, what about the Catholic bible? It was in place far before the Protestant version and includes many different books which ours does not. So the curse, if it exists, would be very hard to determine who was at risk because we are unsure of the original books which should be accepted or rejected.
It strikes me as more of a "I am right because I am and if you don't accept that then you can go to hell. (literally of course)."

If you ask an atheist it is the crazy ramblings and hallucinations of an old man cast off on an island. Hardly conclusive proof. I know you can do better than that.
We are not getting permission from atheists to validate the Bible. Not only do they lack an absolute standard for morality, [many of them even deny absolute truth of any kind], but they would say the entire Bible is the ramblings of crazy men.

Granted. I was trying to make the point that just as atheists require some degree of evidence to include a book, so too I demand a particular degree of evidence. Revelations could be the insane ramblings of an old man just as easily as it could be factual evidence. We just don't really know. We don't know who wrote it, or when, or where, or for what reason. And the contents of it are not much more than a collection of images someone claims to have seen in a vision.

So, you are correct that I do not accept revelations as authoritative. In fact I would give it about the least amount of precedence of all the books in the NT. Even if it does have authority, no one is sure of the meaning or how it should be read. Heck, christian scholars are still debating what it even SAYS, much less what it means.

You reject John for various reasons, seem to reject Revelations, and have at least not shown or given any standard by which you interpret scripture, and you mentioned the Catholic Bible.

Without a standard --Cannon-- there is no basis for establishing truth, nor is there any way to preclude "new revelation" or lost books, such as the "Gospel of Judas" from being added.

Ok. Why should I accept the entire bible as authoritative? What good reason is there for accepting this version as is, without cropping out even more books as I tend to do?

You keep mentioning adding other books. But if the books already in the bible don't make my cut, why on earth would any of the others? I deny books. I don't know of any that I would add.

You see I am mentally cutting out any chance for "fat". Why would I reject something someone else accepts, but accept something that everyone else rejects without very good reason?

Without such a standard that Goose has mentioned and I have mentioned, --The 27 Books of the NT, the result is someone throwing out John because we don't know his surname, and someone else adding "The Lost Gospel of Thomas" and someone else saying that Mary was perpetually a virgin, or that clergy should not marry, or that people are bought out of purgatory. The cannon was closed by the end of the first century. First a note on the trustworthiness of the NT, (including John)

Right, but my question is still valid. I am not trying to add Thomas or Mary or Peter. I reject those as well for good reasons. I read the Jesus Seminar's book "The Five Gospels" and understood their point. However, this doesn't mean I agree that the Gospel of Thomas should be included. I reject it for even more reasons than John or Revelations. At least I read John for information. Thomas, I don't even read for that. The only reason I would read Thomas is either for reference, or for an understanding of 2nd Century Gnostic writings.

Here is a main point I think you may not be getting. . . .

I am rejecting MORE than I am "supposed" to, not LESS than others do. Someone who is rejecting even more books of the canon is not going to accept outside books into the canon in its place. So worry not about Thomas or Mary.

I am cutting deeper than those who constructed the bible's canon did. Am I cropping out some flesh and muscle? Probably. But in an effort to cut ALL fat, I am willing to make that sacrifice. And I certainly am not adding any further books. Someone

The Reliability of the New Testament
Just how reliable are the New Testament documents?

There are now more than 5,300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. Add over 10,000 Latin Vulgate and at least 9,300 other early versions (MSS) and we have more than 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament. This means that no other document of antiquity even begins to approach such numbers and attestation. In comparison, the Iliad by Homer is second with only 643 manuscripts that still survive. The first complete preserved text of Homer dates from the 13th century.74

This contrast is startling and tremendously significant.

Perhaps we can appreciate how wealthy the New Testament is in manuscript attestation if we compare the textual material for other ancient historical works. For Caesar’s Gallic War (composed between 58 and 50 B.C) there are several extant MSS, but only nine or ten are good, and the oldest is some 900 years later than Caesar’s day.

It is weird to be quoted evidence which I myself use. I know this. I accept this. However, you must understand what this evidence DOES imply, and what it does NOT imply so you won't use it incorrectly.

Many manuscripts does ensure that the NT was passed along correctly from its original writings. It does assist in tracing and tracking down where copy errors occurred.

However, it does NOT prove that the original documents were correct in what they wrote. If I write a document that states the sky was green at Noon on 1/24/2008, and it is copied 25000 times over the next 2000 years, I would be willing to bet that a historian then could be fairly sure that I did indeed write that the sky was green at noon on 1/24/2008. But does that mean that I was telling the truth?

Question: "What is the canon of Scripture?"

Answer: This is a very important question because Christianity does not start by defining God, or Jesus Christ, or salvation. The basis of Christianity is found in the authority of Scripture. If we can't identify what is Scripture, then we can't properly distinguish any theological truth from error.

The word "canon" comes from the rule of law that was used to determine if a book measured up to a standard. But it is important to note that the writings of Scripture were canonical at the moment they were written. Scripture was Scripture when the pen touched the parchment.

http://www.gotquestions.org/canon-of-Scripture.html
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=697
http://www.gotquestions.org/canon-Bible.html
http://www.gotquestions.org/canonicity-scriptural.html


"We are careful to say that God determined the canon, and the church discovered the canon. The canon of Scripture was not created by the church; rather, the church discovered or recognized it. In other words, God's Word was inspired and authoritative from its inception-it "stands firm in the heavens" (Psalm 119:89)-and the church simply recognized that fact and accepted it.

The criteria the church used for recognizing and collecting the Word of God are as follows:

1) Was the book written by a prophet of God? Or an apostle/or eyewitness.
2) Was the writer authenticated by miracles to confirm his message? Does it even claim to be inspired, or ring with the authority and evidence of being inspired by the Holy Spirit.
3) Does the book tell the truth about God, with no falsehood or contradiction? -- Does it concur with other already agreed-upon scripture.
4) Does the book evince a divine capacity to transform lives?
5) Was the book accepted as God's Word by the people to whom it was first delivered? Is the book accepted by the Body of Christ --Church at large.

Now THIS cuts to the heart of the issue. Let's examine the letters of Paul given these criteria.
1) Was the book written by a prophet of God? Or an apostle/or eyewitness. Paul was not an eyewitness. Paul MIGHT have been an apostle. I tend to think he was based on the agreement of his teachings with the apostles, and his unexplained conversion (if this indeed did happen).

2) Was the writer authenticated by miracles to confirm his message? Does it even claim to be inspired, or ring with the authority and evidence of being inspired by the Holy Spirit. Miracles attributed. However, I think number two should STOP at this point because any work can claim to be inspired.

3) Does the book tell the truth about God, with no falsehood or contradiction? -- Does it concur with other already agreed-upon scripture. This is a big reason why I don't hold it as authoritative. Paul's writings contain a great deal of information which is not found in any other scriptures. His tone concerning traditions also seems to disagree with what Jesus taught on the matter. But this can be up for debate.

4) Does the book evince a divine capacity to transform lives? Paul's letters were meant to be instructions for the churches he founded. So of course it would change lives of those who were being instructed. I am not sure that this kind of change is what they meant. I think they probably meant changing a sinner into a saint, not a believer who doesn't eat meat, into one that does.

5) Was the book accepted as God's Word by the people to whom it was first delivered? Is the book accepted by the Body of Christ --Church at large. This was probably true concerning Paul's letters.

Of these criteria, the one of most importance was the first one-was the book written by a prophet? Its corollary, did the book receive apostolic approval?, was the chief test of canonicity in the early church. This criterion is a logical result of knowing what an "apostle" was. The apostles were gifted by God to be the founders and leaders of the church, so it is reasonable to accept that through them came the Word governing the church."

Yes. I agree that the author MUST be known. However, the apostles were not the people who assembled the canon. THIS IS IMPORTANT. If the apostles had assembled the canon, I would not be complaining. But the apostles were dead for 300 years or so before the canon was established.

But even if Revelations should be taken seriously, what about the Catholic bible? It was in place far before the Protestant version and includes many different books which ours does not. So the curse, if it exists, would be very hard to determine who was at risk because we are unsure of the original books which should be accepted or rejected.

The apocrypha --the extra 14 books and additions added by the Catholic Bible, was never part of the original Jewish Cannon, nor was it accepted by Jewish scholars as even being inspired.
In addition, it was not written in Hebrew, which the Jewish Scriptures were. The early Jewish Christians all rejected the apocrypha as part of their cannon.

You must be referring to the Vulgate??? It was included in Jerome's Vulgate, the Latin translation of the Bible, but because of pressure, and he noted specifically in his translation that it was not inspired.

The Anglican church also includes it, "for it's devotional value", but explicitly states that they do not consider it inspired or the same level as other scriptures.

The Apocrypha makes no claim of being inspired. It does however admit that there are mistakes.
The Apocrypha was never part of the OT Jewish Cannon, nor was it even written in Hebrew.
The apocrypha contains numerous geographical and historical errors, in addition to direct contradictions of clear doctrine taught in scripture, for example giving of alms for salvation, praying to dead saints, selling of indulgences, and other doctrines spread by the Catholic church.
The vast majority of the early church Fathers agreed on the contents of the cannon, and one of the earliest Church councils was held in about 320 AD and the Apocrypha was not included in the cannon. Council of Laodicea.
Jesus, nor any of the NT writers ever quotes from the apocrypha -- they were familiar with it, but did not regard it as inspired.
The New Testament quotes all books of the Old Testament except 3, but never quotes the apocrypha.
The notion that the cannon was included in the Septuagint --The Greek translation of the Old Testament] and portions of the Septuagint were discoved in the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Qumran caves, is irrelevant- proves nothing, because portions other extra Biblical documents were also found there.

Perhaps one of the most significant notes about the Apocrypha is that the Catholic Church "decided" to included 1500 years later, at the Council of Trent, as a response to the Reformation, to justify their practices after Martin Luther denounced the UnBiblical doctrines, exposed the heresy and also put the Bible in the hands of the people so they could read it in their own language.
The Vulgate was in Latin, which was the language of the elite, primarily clergy. Because they wanted to keep the Bible out of the hands of the common people, it was illegal to even own a Bible.

I think we can agree on the fact that these books are excluded for good reason. However, the same can be said of Revelations or Hebrews, 1-3 John, etc.

These books have characteristics which are similar to books which are rejected.

Now if those choosing revelations or Hebrews also chose John and Matthew, then it seems that they were not in fact obeying the list of criteria which you presented above. So even according to your standards, as listed above, you should reject these books just as I reject John and Paul's letters for various reasons.

How can you accept Hebrews as authoritative given the criteria you have listed above?

Bible scholars today are uncertain at best at to who wrote Hebrews exactly, some guess Luke, some think Paul, but it is complete speculation. The point being, like with John the boatmaker, or John the dude who was an eyewitness to Jesus and the Disciples, it doesn't take away from his testimony, or lesson the validity or inspiration of his message. John has some unique accounts and perspectives, but his message about Christ doesn't contradict any other portions of Scripture.

You have cited several reasons it should be EXCLUDED based on the criteria above. Why is it included when it does not pass points 1 or 2 and the rest are questionable? 3 out of 5 and John is included. This is hardly being picky or choosy about what books should be included.

Most importantly, it is included in the cannon. You may be cautious, about the exact details of John, as most Bible scholars and Christians are about Hebrews, but without a clear standard, you have no justifiable reason for excluding that, than excluding James, or Mark, nor can you give a solid reason why other "Gospels" should not be added.

I am totally ok with the standard that you have listed above. I can accept it for the most part as decent. I think numbers 3 and 4 and 5 are a bit hooky. They strike me as "it says what I want it to so I will accept it." But one and two for sure are good reasons for rejecting.

Here, let me make it simple. I will spell out the main reasons I accept or reject a book. You tell me if it is credible and why.

1) The book needs to be written by either an eyewitness, or someone recording an eyewitness

2) The book should contain information which can be cross referenced with extra biblical sources of some kind.

3) The book should not contradict other books if both are to be accepted.

4) The book should present similar pictures of events as other books if they are both to be accepted.

5) If the books contain extra information about something, this additional information should present a similar picture as the other books if both are to accepted.


Are these guidelines decent? Why or why not?

[Salt Agent]

Greetings, Posters,

Achilles is making me dig and dig, and think and read, and dig. Anyone else out there, feel free to jump in. I still don't say you're a heretic. LOL.
In fact i think you are farther away than the first post.

Laughing It is weird to be quoted evidence which I myself use. I
know this. I accept this. However, you must understand what this evidence DOES imply, and what it does NOT imply so you won't use it incorrectly.

Many manuscripts does ensure that the NT was passed along correctly from its original writings. It does assist in tracing and tracking down where copy errors occurred.

However, it does NOT prove that the original documents were correct in what they wrote. If I write a document that states the sky was green at Noon on 1/24/2008, and it is copied 25000 times over the next 2000 years, I would be willing to bet that a historian then could be fairly sure that I did indeed write that the sky was green at noon on 1/24/2008. But does that mean that I was telling the truth?

I agree, it doesn't prove beyond all doubt that the New Testament is true. However, I think we agree there is some uncertainty about whether there was a lone gunman on the "grassy knoll," (I just had to use that phrase) or whether Timothy McVeigh and Nichols were the only ones, or the exact chemical composition of the explosives...

The point is a high degree of probability based on multiple factors and circumstances. I think that scripture is also clear, that one critical non-negotiable element for Salvation is FAITH.

If everything could be proven with 100% certainty and reproduced in a lab, measured, and recorded on video, and every sound transcribed, there would be no need for faith. The most adament atheist, and the TOE itself depends of certain probabilities, certain constant mathematical formulas and laws of physics, random chance, and speculation about what happened in the past.

Hebrews 11:6 Without Faith it is impossible to please God, for he who comes to God must believe that He is[exists] and that He is the rewarder of those who seek Him. NASB

Ephesians 2:8New American Standard Bible (NASB)

8 For (A)by grace you have been saved (B)through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is (C)the gift of God;
9 (A)not as a result of works, so that (B)no one may boast.

Most atheists and Theists alike accept that The Republic was written by Plato, and accept the Gallic Wars, and the Homer's Odyssey as being written by the person attributed to have written them. In terms of textual criticism, and the number of early manuscripts, which are identical, no other ancient document in the history of the entire world comes close.

Combine this knowledge with the fact that thousands of geological discoveries have been discovered, and are constantly being uncovered, that confirm events recorded in the Bible, as well as by secular historians.
Perhaps one of the greatest archeological discoveries of all time was the Rosetta Stone, which was literally the key which opened Egypt's Splendid Past, and allowed linguists to decipher hieroglyphics.
Moabite Stone - parallels and confirms Biblical History recorded in Second Kings.
Dead Sea Scrolls -- Caves at Qumran.
The Royal Archives and the Mari Letters, some 20,000 clay tablets dug up which revolutionized knowledge of the ancient Biblical world, written in Old Babylonian dialect app 1700 BC, and confirm Biblical cities, and events.

Together, combined with the fact that Jewish and Roman historians, even hostile to the message of Christianity, confirm the existence and martyr of Christians, -followers of Jesus Christ. The early church was almost exclusively Jewish, so it would make no sense for them to make up/ fabricate his resurrection knowing they would be killed for such claims. Not a great recruiting tool.

This, combined with multiple prophecies written by prophets from 200-500 years before Christ was born, living in different countries, so no way to corroborate their story -- fulfilled in Christ.

Together, combined with the fact that history itself is divided and defined by the birth and death of Christ, not Buddha, Muhammed, Ghandi, Confucious, or Joseph Smith.

Together, combined with the unique claims of Christ, and the uniqueness of Christianity itself, which sets it apart as distinct from all other religions in the world.

Together, combined with "unexplainable phenomena" that science or medicine has no explanation for, in my own life, and the lives of family members, and personal friends.

Together with FAITH,

This combination of factors, together with faith makes me absolutely certain of the evidence for the claims of Christ, the resurrection, and the total trustworthiness of the Bible as God's word revealed to Mankind.


http://www.gotquestions.org/canon-of-Scripture.html
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=697
http://www.gotquestions.org/canon-Bible.html
http://www.gotquestions.org/canonicity-scriptural.html


The criteria the church used for recognizing and collecting the Word of God are as follows:

1) Was the book written by a prophet of God? Or an apostle/or eyewitness.
2) Was the writer authenticated by miracles to confirm his message? Does it even claim to be inspired, or ring with the authority and evidence of being inspired by the Holy Spirit.
3) Does the book tell the truth about God, with no falsehood or contradiction? -- Does it concur with other already agreed-upon scripture.
4) Does the book evince a divine capacity to transform lives?
5) Was the book accepted as God's Word by the people to whom it was first delivered? Is the book accepted by the Body of Christ --Church at large.

** I will recheck my post but i did not say that every one of the five criteria were met for every book.

Now THIS cuts to the heart of the issue. Let's examine the letters of Paul given these criteria.

Hebrews 13:18-25 tells us that this book was not anonymous to the original readers; they evidently knew the author.

John and Hebrews meet most of the requirements, but most importantly, neither John nor Hebrews contain doctrine or anything that contradicts other clear teaching in the rest of the Bible. I understand your desire to cut the Fat. I just don't think you can give a reason that could not also be used to cut out other books.

[achilles12604]

Laughing It is weird to be quoted evidence which I myself use. I
know this. I accept this. However, you must understand what this evidence DOES imply, and what it does NOT imply so you won't use it incorrectly.

Many manuscripts does ensure that the NT was passed along correctly from its original writings. It does assist in tracing and tracking down where copy errors occurred.

However, it does NOT prove that the original documents were correct in what they wrote. If I write a document that states the sky was green at Noon on 1/24/2008, and it is copied 25000 times over the next 2000 years, I would be willing to bet that a historian then could be fairly sure that I did indeed write that the sky was green at noon on 1/24/2008. But does that mean that I was telling the truth?

I agree, it doesn't prove beyond all doubt that the New Testament is true. However, I think we agree there is some uncertainty about whether there was a lone gunman on the "grassy knoll," (I just had to use that phrase) or whether Timothy McVeigh and Nichols were the only ones, or the exact chemical composition of the explosives...

The point is a high degree of probability based on multiple factors and circumstances. I think that scripture is also clear, that one critical non-negotiable element for Salvation is FAITH.

If everything could be proven with 100% certainty and reproduced in a lab, measured, and recorded on video, and every sound transcribed, there would be no need for faith. The most adament atheist, and the TOE itself depends of certain probabilities, certain constant mathematical formulas and laws of physics, random chance, and speculation about what happened in the past.

Faith is an interesting concept. For myself, I have faith, but I do not depend on it. The virgin birth is something without evidence. It must be accepted totally on faith. But if a concept requires faith alone as its support, while I may believe it for myself privately, I do not defend the belief, nor do I encourage it for others. Most of my beliefs are supported one way or the other. Faith is not a huge component of my beliefs because I have sought out facts to further support the issues of faith.

Together with FAITH,

This combination of factors, together with faith makes me absolutely certain of the evidence for the claims of Christ, the resurrection, and the total trustworthiness of the Bible as God's word revealed to Mankind.

I have edited your post here short because it was a conglomeration of proofs. But what was your subject? You cited lots of evidence, but no single event to be proven. If that evidence was cited to prove the validity of the bible as a whole, then you absolutely should break it down and show what evidence supports what part.

The criteria the church used for recognizing and collecting the Word of God are as follows:

1) Was the book written by a prophet of God? Or an apostle/or eyewitness.
2) Was the writer authenticated by miracles to confirm his message? Does it even claim to be inspired, or ring with the authority and evidence of being inspired by the Holy Spirit.
3) Does the book tell the truth about God, with no falsehood or contradiction? -- Does it concur with other already agreed-upon scripture.
4) Does the book evince a divine capacity to transform lives?
5) Was the book accepted as God's Word by the people to whom it was first delivered? Is the book accepted by the Body of Christ --Church at large.

** I will recheck my post but i did not say that every one of the five criteria were met for every book.

Now THIS cuts to the heart of the issue. Let's examine the letters of Paul given these criteria.

Hebrews 13:18-25 tells us that this book was not anonymous to the original readers; they evidently knew the author.

John and Hebrews meet most of the requirements, but most importantly, neither John nor Hebrews contain doctrine or anything that contradicts other clear teaching in the rest of the Bible. I understand your desire to cut the Fat. I just don't think you can give a reason that could not also be used to cut out other books.

This would actually be a good exercise. Lets take Hebrews and see how well it matches the first criteria, and then how well it matches mine.

[Salt Agent]

greetings.

I agree with most of what Achilles stated in the last post.

Many manuscripts does ensure that the NT was passed along correctly from its original writings. It does assist in tracing and tracking down where copy errors occurred.

However, it does NOT prove that the original documents were correct in what they wrote.

The point is a high degree of probability based on multiple factors and circumstances. I think that scripture is also clear, that one critical non-negotiable element for Salvation is FAITH.

Faith is an interesting concept. For myself, I have faith, but I do not depend on it. The virgin birth is something without evidence. It must be accepted totally on faith. But if a concept requires faith alone as its support, while I may believe it for myself privately, I do not defend the belief, nor do I encourage it for others. Most of my beliefs are supported one way or the other. Faith is not a huge component of my beliefs because I have sought out facts to further support the issues of faith.

I may believe it for myself privately, I do not defend the belief, nor do I encourage it for others. Do you mean the virgin birth specifically, or any doctrinal belief that cannot be proven in a laboratory? You say that you don't depend on it? Do you mean you don't depend only on blind faith??-- I can firmly agree on that. Or do you mean that you don't see it as necessary?

Most of my beliefs are supported one way or the other.
As are mine. Many people erroneously think Christians must accept everything on blind faith, without reason, intellect, logic, or archeological finds, etc.


Together with FAITH,

This combination of factors, together with faith makes me absolutely certain of the evidence for the claims of Christ, the resurrection, and the total trustworthiness of the Bible as God's word revealed to Mankind.

I have edited your post here short because it was a conglomeration of proofs. But what was your subject? You cited lots of evidence... If that evidence was cited to prove the validity of the bible as a whole, then you absolutely should break it down and show what evidence supports what part.

My point was that it - Christianity, and specifically the trustworthiness of the Bible is like a huge pile of circumstantial evidence. Each piece -taken in isolation doesn't offer much certainty or even a high probability. Taken all together -- Faith, archeological finds, science, reason, secular historians, mathematical probabilities and statistics, prophecies fulfilled by Christ, eyewitness accounts martyred for their claims, the history and collection of the cannon itself, and personal divine encounters/miracles --give Christians through the ages confidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Christ is who He claimed to be, and that the Bible is trustworthy.


The criteria the church used for recognizing and collecting the Word of God are as follows:

1) Was the book written by a prophet of God? Or an apostle/or eyewitness.
2) Was the writer authenticated by miracles to confirm his message? Does it even claim to be inspired, or ring with the authority and evidence of being inspired by the Holy Spirit.
3) Does the book tell the truth about God, with no falsehood or contradiction? -- Does it concur with other already agreed-upon scripture.
4) Does the book evince a divine capacity to transform lives?
5) Was the book accepted as God's Word by the people to whom it was first delivered? Is the book accepted by the Body of Christ --Church at large.

** I will recheck my post but i did not say that every one of the five criteria were met for every book.

Now THIS cuts to the heart of the issue. Let's examine the letters of Paul given these criteria.

Hebrews 13:18-25 tells us that this book was not anonymous to the original readers; they evidently knew the author.

John and Hebrews meet most of the requirements, but most importantly, neither John nor Hebrews contain doctrine or anything that contradicts other clear teaching in the rest of the Bible. I understand your desire to cut the Fat. I just don't think you can give a reason that could not also be used to cut out other books.

This would actually be a good exercise. Lets take Hebrews and see how well it matches the first criteria, and then how well it matches mine.

Lets take Hebrews and see how well it matches the first criteria, and then how well it matches mine.[/color] I don't mean to imply that every book passed every single test --i can't find anything to state categorically one way of the other. The most important, as stated, was the first.
Was it written by an apostle, prophet, or eye witness, or was it affirmed/confirmed by one? Hebrews definitely passes this test. While the author was not stated, it is clear the the author was known to the original first century readers. It is also clear that the author did not know Hebrew and quoted exclusively from the Septuagint.
The high Christology of Hebrews stands out remarkably from other books. The theme is the Supremacy and Superiority of Christ's Person, and Christ's work, and the spiritual depth and quality of Hebrew's bore witness to its inspiration despite its anonymity.

Secondly, it tells the truth about God and Christ, and does not contradict any other doctrine or books already accepted.

Thirdly, even though there is no hard evidence of the author, at least it was known to the first readers, and was nonetheless accepted by the early Fathers, and later the Church at large, including the Catholic and Orthodox churches.

With all due respect, my friend, it is pointless to try to use your grid. I say this with all the grace I can. It has already passed the test by the early church leaders, and was accepted by the Body of Christ at large. Others have questions about the real author of John, and doubt whether it was John the Beloved. OK, so it was another John, but that doesn't give us the right to create a new "Filter" or Bob's Improved Test for Biblical authority.

I think you can see my point, and the slippery slope it would create.
Martin Luther himself tried to have the book of James thrown out from the cannon, because he reacted so sharply against the Catholic doctrine of salvation by works.

Perhaps you could state the specific points/contradictions that you see in Hebrews and John.

Feel free to cut and shorten, as i know it gets long. Other posters can read the recent posts. I think the issue of the authority of scripture sets the foundation to defend any and all other doctrines. Without the authority of scripture, the resurrection or the trinity or the virgin birth is meaningless.

Regards,
Salt Agent.

Now i think i will take a short break and get a brain transplant.

[achilles12604]

The criteria the church used for recognizing and collecting the Word of God are as follows:

1) Was the book written by a prophet of God? Or an apostle/or eyewitness.
2) Was the writer authenticated by miracles to confirm his message? Does it even claim to be inspired, or ring with the authority and evidence of being inspired by the Holy Spirit.
3) Does the book tell the truth about God, with no falsehood or contradiction? -- Does it concur with other already agreed-upon scripture.
4) Does the book evince a divine capacity to transform lives?
5) Was the book accepted as God's Word by the people to whom it was first delivered? Is the book accepted by the Body of Christ --Church at large.


Lets take Hebrews and see how well it matches the first criteria, and then how well it matches mine. I don't mean to imply that every book passed every single test --i can't find anything to state categorically one way of the other. The most important, as stated, was the first.

Alright. Let's focus on Hebrews for the moment. We can move to John later.

Was it written by an apostle, prophet, or eye witness, or was it affirmed/confirmed by one? Hebrews definitely passes this test. While the author was not stated, it is clear the the author was known to the original first century readers. It is also clear that the author did not know Hebrew and quoted exclusively from the Septuagint.
The high Christology of Hebrews stands out remarkably from other books. The theme is the Supremacy and Superiority of Christ's Person, and Christ's work, and the spiritual depth and quality of Hebrew's bore witness to its inspiration despite its anonymity.

Harold W. Attridge writes of the Epistle to the Hebrews (op. cit., p. 97):


Although Hebrews is included in the Pauline corpus and was part of that corpus in its earliest attested form (p46), it is certainly not a work of the apostle. This fact was recognized, largely on sytlistic grounds, even in antiquity. Some patristic authors defended the traditional Pauline attribution with theories of scribal assistants such as Clement of Rome or Luke, but such hypotheses do not do justice to the very un-Pauline treatment of key themes, particularly those of law and faith. Numerous alternative candidates for authorship have been proposed. The most prominent have been Barnabas, to whom Tertullian assigned the work; Apollos, defended by Luther and many moderns; Priscilla, suggested by von Harnack; Epaphras; and Silas. Arguments for none are decisive, and Origen's judgment that "God only knows" who composed the work is sound. The book is anonymous, and its author is unknown. Perrin writes about the provenance of Hebrews (The New Testament: An Introduction, p. 138): "To whom was Hebrews originally addressed? The writer is a Hellenistic Jewish Christian, and his arguments presuppose that he is writing to others who think as he does, i.e., to a Hellenistic Jewish Christian community. Since Clement of Rome knows and quotes the text within what could only have been a few years of its writing, that community may well have been in Rome. This view is supported by the greetings from 'those who have come from Italy' in Heb 13:24."

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/hebrews.html



Hmm. I am afraid I must disagree with absolutely EVERYTHING you wrote. Figures huh?

Hebrews is anonymus. It's author is totally unknown. Now remember, at the time of the canon, 342, they did not know who wrote it any more than we do today. Otherwise it would have been assigned a name as did 123 John, 12 Peter or James. The author certainly wasn't Paul since the style of writing was completely different as was content. For more on this check here.

So if it wasn't Paul, and it wasn't one of the original followers of Jesus, and it was written by an individual from Rome, then it can not be an apostle. It couldn't be written by an eyewitness given in internal writings and verses which indicate the source as someone from Rome. It is much more likely that it was written by a leader in a new church in Rome to the Hebrews back in Judah/Jerusalem.

Also, remember that this book was not adopted until 342. So even if the first century people knew who it was for, they were dead 250 years by the time it was adopted. So saying that the people who recieved the letter knew who it was from really doesn't make any difference.

Secondly, it tells the truth about God and Christ, and does not contradict any other doctrine or books already accepted.

Thirdly, even though there is no hard evidence of the author, at least it was known to the first readers, and was nonetheless accepted by the early Fathers, and later the Church at large, including the Catholic and Orthodox churches.

It does past the test of "were other people using it regularly". But this is a very weak test.

The Nazarenes were using a different copy of Matthew by 55CE. But they were outcast by the growing church because they rejected many new orthodox ideas like the virgin birth and Jesus high christology. The Nazarenes were MUCH closer to events than those of 342 CE.

Now if the Nazarenes were using a book regularly which was later considered heresy, how does your "it was already in use" test stand up? It is a bad test and another reason why I think that the original canon selection was flawed.

With all due respect, my friend, it is pointless to try to use your grid. I say this with all the grace I can. It has already passed the test by the early church leaders, and was accepted by the Body of Christ at large.

And I have shown why their decision making was flawed. Accepting a book as divine based solely on "people have been using it in the past" is a bogus reason. This is even more true when this "reason" is not applied fairly or evenly. The Nazarene copy of Matthew pre-dated Hebrews yet was rejected because it didn't say what it was "supposed to".

It appears more and more that the canon was selected not by the rules they CLAIM to have used (especially since Hebrews failed the most important 2:1-2) but by what they WANTED it to be based on THIER own beliefs. They FIXED the election so to speak.

Perhaps you could state the specific points/contradictions that you see in Hebrews and John.

I don't have to. You have already done a lot of it for me. The high christology found in John and Hebrews is not found in Matthew, Mark or Luke. And these 3 books DO pass the first 2 tests as well as the other 3. Hebrews and John do not.

So you are wanting me to accept 2 books which . . .

1) did not pass their own tests
2) Present a far different image of Jesus than books which DO pass the tests.

Is this really a good idea?



PS - Thank you for your kind words. They do not go unnoticed. And I am VERY much enjoying this debate.

[Goose]

Sorry, it's been a while. I've been very busy and only logged in a few times over the last couple weeks.

Giving this thread some thought, I've realized that the major disconnect revolves around which scripture is considered authoritative and which is not. You and Salt Agent are already in this discussion. So I don't mean to repeat but I did say I would post again in this thread in my PM to you. We desperately need a transparent methodology or this thread will really go no where. It will essentially boil down to our opinions of what we like and don't like in scripture. If it's OK with you, let's put the following mini-debates on hold until we can come to a resolution on scripture.

1. The divinity of Christ
2. The resurrection
3. Paul's Gospel

Now you wrote

I'm sorry, that's not a valid reason to reject Paul as authoritative - because "he was forced to insert his own opinions to deal with the issues his churches faced." All you are really saying is, "I don't agree with Paul's opinion on matters of church life therefore I reject him as authoritative." That's not a methodology, that's your opinion about Paul's opinions. What you need to do is demonstrate that each of what you think is merely Paul's opinions ran counter to Jesus. I don't think you've even come close to doing that.

I disagree. There doesn't need to be any contention between Jesus and Paul. If Paul is writing his opinion, and you are taking his opinion as authoritative, are you saying that anything Paul says carries as much weight as what Jesus himself said?

Yes. If it is inspired by God it would. It would be coming from the same source. Also, if Paul spoke with the disciples and we are given the indication by both Paul and Luke that Paul's teachings were accepted, we have further confirmation that Paul's message was in-line and inspired by Jesus/God and is therefore equally authoritative to Jesus' own words.

This is an interesting position indeed because it would lend support to the idea of Paul inventing Christianity based on a few ideas that Jesus put forth.

Not if Paul had received his information directly from Jesus and the disciples. Then he wouldn't be "inventing" anything. Paul tells us he received it from Jesus and confirmed it with the disciples as we've previously discovered. Luke confirms that Paul submitted himself to the elders in Jerusalem.

As a side note here, because you believe Jesus was man and God spirit your own belief system cannot place Jesus any higher than Paul in authority. We have no reason to think, with your world view, Jesus got His message straight any more than Paul. In your world view, the words of Jesus carry no more weight than Paul or any messenger of God that had the Holy Sprit working in them. In fact, you should place Paul's writings as more authoritaive because THEY ARE his writings from his own hand and mind. We don't have to wonder if he remembered correctly, but we do with the gospel writers.

A LOT of the traditions in Christianity trace back to Paul and his writings. However, not nearly as many are found in the words attributed to Jesus.

Firstly, that wouldn't be a reason to reject Paul as authoritative. Secondly, are those traditions in opposition to Jesus' teachings? No, I don't think they are.

So is your position here that anything Paul says is as authoritative and correct as what Jesus himself said?

When he tells us that the Lord said it, with out question, yes.

Here's my position.

The writers of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and the apostle Paul et al were inspired by God to write their respective works. Therefore, each work is scripture and carries an equal amount of authority as they all contain an inspired message. I don't look at the words of Jesus in the Gospels as a verbatim word-for-word recantation (like a tape recording). They most certainly do contain some verbatim wording and they also contain a God inspired paraphrasing. I believe God inspired the writers to remember and record what He desired each writer to write for a specific purpose. Each work whether a letter or Gospel was divinely orchestrated for a specific purpose with a specific audience in mind. Each writer interwove their own personality, perspective and left their finger print on each work as they were written by men but inspired by God. Everything the NT teaches in matters of faith and practise is true and infallible. The NT is inerrant in what it touches factually. The underlining message is inspired. Therefore, all scripture that has apostolic authorship has equal authority.

Ok debate 2
2) Did the Gospel writers include opinions or interpretations in their writings? I still say no. Perhaps a definition is in order. I define interpreted as "Being given meaning or implications for specific situations or understandings."

Here's a definition of interpret
• verb (interpreted, interpreting) 1 explain the meaning of. 2 translate orally the words of a person speaking a different language. 3 understand as having a particular meaning or significance. 4 perform (a creative work) in a way that conveys one’s understanding of the creator’s ideas.

Now, the Gospels could certainly fall under definition 3 and 4 wouldn't you agree? (though I wouldn't call the Gospels a "creative work" in the sense of making it up. Nor would I call them a "performance")

Incidentally, I'm wondering where Paul actually offers an interpretation of Jesus' teachings based on this definition above?

It implies an on-the-spot and absolutely 100% accurate recording (like having a video camera) of the events with absolutely no personality or view point interwoven into it - as though they were written with a completely objective perspective. I just don't see how one can read the Gospels and say that. It is obvious to even the most undiscerning reader that the writers of the Gospels had their own viewpoints, interpretations, and personalities woven into their respective works. Each writer chooses to add and omit certain events and some times has different wording for the same event or quote at some point. This alone shows an interpretation.

I agree with much of what you wrote here. Each man did have his own views, beliefs, etc. Each one did write in a different manner and to different audiences. However, I disagree that this has anything to do with interpreting what they wrote. I will admit that the style does give the writing flavors. Matthew for example writes just like a tax collector. His writings are organized by theme and idea. Mark writings are nothing more than a brief over view. Luke seems to write in as great of detail as he could manage while still keeping things concise. But, this doesn't mean that any of these men input their own interpretations or understandings into their writings.

Are you sure? How do you know?

Consider an analogy...

Oh no, not another one. Sorry, you were saying before I so rudely interrupted...

...Two men write an account of the battle of the bulge. One is a historian, the other is a soldier at the battle. The soldiers account will certainly contain his own styles. And his writings will certainly be for a specific audience. But his rendition of events would remain about the same because he was simply reciting what he saw and experienced. On the other hand, the historian would have a the ability to insert MEANING into the events of the battle. He could write about how he felt things went. What went right or wrong. What should have been done differently. What this battle meant for the war. Agreeing or disagreeing with the decisions of the commanders as it pertained to the total strategy of the war. Basically, the historian would be able to insert his opinions about the meaning or impact of events, while the soldier would simply be able to recite the events as they occurred.

I'm not sure I understand this. Are you actually saying the soldier would not try to insert MEANING? You don't think he would try to give some meaning to the deaths of his buddies and comrades? Ever spoken to a WWII vet? I think you were in the military if I remember correctly. Are you saying soldiers wouldn't give meaning to a battle or death; that they would only report facts with out meaning inserted? I don't believe that.

This is the difference between the style of writings that the Gospels take, and Paul's writings. On is simply a rendition of events. The other includes what the events ultimately mean.

Actually I think Paul's letters are a simple rendition of events as well. If the Gospels were such a simple rendition of events why does Mark start differently than Luke and Luke have a different genealogy than Mathew? It's because each writer was inspired to give different meaning and interpret differently how to record events for a different purpose to give a richer picture of Jesus' life.

So when you conclude that the Gospel writers inserted their own interpretations, I must disagree. They inserted their own experiences, styles, and audiences yes. But not any form of meaning or interpretations.

Luke, writing to gentiles, gives a genealogy that emphasis Jesus' humanity. Matthew, writing to Jews, gives a genealogy that demonstrates Jesus' royal Jewish line. You don't think Matthew and Luke were inspired to interpret Jesus' lineage in different ways for the audience God intended? Mark doesn't even bother with a lineage and goes straight into setting the stage for John the Baptist with prophecies from the OT. And John...well, we won't go there, will we.

Do you still think the gospels didn't have an interpretation? Once again, if you reject Paul because of it containing interpretations of events you must reject all Christian writings by the same criteria. They may not contain interpretations in the text proper as I've stated in other posts. But they do contain interpretations of the events by the choice of what to record and how and why to record it. That gives the text meaning and significance - that is interpretation.

Now, it is possible that Luke was not aware of Matthew's genealogy and vice verse. This could explain the difference. But considering how perfectly each genealogy would appeal to it's intended audience it seems unlikely. Further, each writer is very aware of each others key events in many other areas. So to think that Luke was simply ignorant of the Davidic genealogy Matthew reports is highly unlikely and vice verse. Ditto for Mark.

I think you are confusing my position again here. I never said that the Gospels weren’t biased. I never said they weren’t slanted. I just said that they weren’t interpreted.

Neither are Paul's writings interpreted then either. They come directly from Paul himself. He reports events and facts. He offers instruction, teaching and encouragement just like Jesus. In fact, I'm not aware of any instance where Paul offers his interpretation of Jesus' teachings, parables, or events. The only difference would be genre. The content and intention are essentially the same.

The key is meaning. What was the meaning behind Jesus healing the sick? What was the meaning behind Jesus death? What was the meaning behind his miracles, parables, etc.

Precisely! That is why each writer records some of these events in a different manner at some point. Or chooses to omit them all together. They give different meaning to an event and have therefore offered an interpretation of the event. It's an inspired interpretation mind you, but never-the-less, an interpretation. So you must reject the Gospels with Paul.

Here is a perfect example. Jesus gives them the parable about the bread of the Pharisees. They didn't understand so Jesus explained it to them. Jesus gave the parable meaning. However, Jesus did not explain the salt and light parable. And the meaning of this parable is being debated 2000 years later. You see the author who recorded the Salt and light parable did not insert any meaning with this event. He just recorded it as it was. When Jesus gave meaning to other parables, he recorded that event too. But the author himself never gave any meaning to anything he recorded.

Let's have a look at this example. As a side note, I wouldn't call this a parable. I would call it a metaphor. Therefore, there was no interpretation needed by Jesus.

Matthew 5:13-16 "You are the salt of the world. But if the salt should lose its taste, how can it be made salty again? It's good for nothing but to be thrown out and trampled on by people. You are the light of the world. A city located on a hill can't be hidden. People don't light a lamp and put it under a basket but on a lampstand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before people in such a way that they will see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven."

Here's Luke's version in 14:34-35 "Now, salt is good. But if the salt should lose its taste, how can its flavor be restored? It is suitable neither for the soil nor for the manure pile. People throw it away. Let the person who has ears to hear, listen!"

I don't see how one can read those two passages and not notice the writers were inspired to word it differently. Perhaps each writer is recording Jesus giving this analogy at a different time and that would explain the different wording. The underlying message is consistent. However, the placement of the metaphor in the respective gospel is different and therefore they have a different context for application. Each writer interpreted the words of Jesus' to have different meaning and relevance. Matthew expounds and develops into the light of the world where Luke is concise and only speaks of the salt. Mark doesn't even have this metaphor.

You provide another example of this...

BTW, are you trying to tell me the Gospels are not meant to instruct us nor do not contain instruction? You can't seriously be saying that. They are full of instruction. I gave you one of many examples with Matthew ch 18.

No. I did not say the Gospels do not provide instruction. But just like Jesus explaining one parable and not the other, the instruction in the Gospel is RECORDED (key word) by the author. It is not GIVEN by the author...

How do you know that? The writers may well have given there opinion. Not in the text proper but in the manner in which the text is recorded as we've seen with the salt and light analogy you provided.

...Since the author did not give this instruction, it was not his instruction and therefore not his opinion. I am perfectly find with being given Jesus opinion on things. But when I must weigh Jesus opinion vs Paul's opinion, I will side with Jesus every time.

Why would you side with Jesus? In your world view Jesus is a man with God's spirit. He's no more or less infallible than Paul.

I don't have to side with either because I believe the source to be the same - Jesus. Additionally, I don't have to pick and choose between Jesus and Paul because we haven't discovered anything where Paul directly contradicts the teachings of Jesus. All we have is speculation on your part around issues such as women speaking in the church and so on.

I say the Gospels are not interpreted by the authors. I never said they were not biased, slanted, or written with opinionated men. I simply said they were not interpreted or given meaning by the authors. Paul's letters on the other hand are nothing but giving meaning. He does nothing but express his opinions about subjects. Granted most of the time his opinions are right. But because they are opinions, I will not give them the same precedence as writings with out inserted opinions.

The disconnect here is that you feel the ONLY way interpretation can take place is IN the written text itself. I'm not limited in my thinking the way you are on this issue. I don't have to be because I don't need to reject Paul. Neither is the definition from askoxford.com that I provided as limited as your definition. I know that interpretation can take place not only IN the written text itself as offered by the person writing the text but also in HOW the writer has been inspired to record the events. We've already seen this with the analogy of the salt and light. You also acknowledged this later in your post when you said:

...But there are clearly differences between the Gospel accounts...

Why do suppose that is? I think it's because each writer was inspired to record and interpret events in a different light to appeal to a wider audience. When harmonized they create a much richer picture of Jesus and His teachings.

Also, you wrote:

...Matthew records people being raised from the graves and walking around after Jesus death. But this event is not recorded in ANY other Gospel.

That's another example of a Gospel writer interpreting the life and significance of Christ in a different way than the other writers by recording particular events. Why do you think Matthew was inspired to include it? Was there a significance and meaning to this event that Matthew felt pertinent to his audience - that audience primarily being Jewish and aware of the significance of the resurrection of the dead - that the other authors felt unnecessary for their audience? Or did Matthew simply include it because he remembered it while the other authors happened to forget such a powerful detail. Or was Matthew embellishing to make his gospel more exciting. Now, as a believer that turns to Matthew, Mark, and Luke for "solid facts" which seems more likely?

Book of John - I used it as a reference because you stated that you accepted it. I have always felt that citing a source the opponent accepts was good debating. After all if atheists weren't allowed to cite the bible, we wouldn't be here. Besides, as I said earlier, I like John and I reference it for my own uses. I just don't use it as evidence because its history is questionable.

You are correct. I used John first which is an inadvertent endorsement. However, you then spent ample time telling us why you do not use it and why you question it. For the sake of argument and brevity I conceded use of John by saying, "John is now irrelevant. We don't even need it for the task at hand." And, "But as I've stated, we don't even need John." I thought we weren't going to use John as this is your thread and you said you don't trust it for evidence. However, if you wish to place it back on the table that's fine too. So, are we using John or not?

I've cut out a good chunk of your post. Please don't get upset. I'm not trying to gloss over issues. However, we are not really making much headway because we do not have a methodology for determining the authority of scripture.

Let me propose a simple methodology to start. I came up with this methodology before I read Salt Agent's post where he offered a set of criteria as well. Interestingly, there are some similar criteria and some different. So, for interest sake, I'll provide mine. To be considered authoritative the work must:

1. Have apostolic and first century authorship. (at least to a reasonable degree of certainty). We'll use the same methodology for establishing authorship and dating as classical scholars use for establishing the authorship and dating of secular works. If it's linked to a first century apostle or disciple it's good-to-go.

2. Have a consistent core message with the majority of other first century works in regards to faith and practice.

3. Have no obvious factual errors.

4. Have a sober and factual demeanor with out obviously bizarre, unecessary and absurd embellishments to the supernatural.

We should have tackled this first, before anything else. That was my mistake for flying into other areas such as Christ's divinity right from the get-go.

I realize you and Salt Agent are having a discussion on this. So maybe I should stay out of it rather than repeating. However, you said to Salt Agent in your last post, who provided a set of criteria,

"Hebrews is anonymus. It's author is totally unknown."

If technically being anonymous disqualifies a work from being authoritaitve then we must discard all four Gospels as well.

I don't have to. You have already done a lot of it for me. The high christology found in John and Hebrews is not found in Matthew, Mark or Luke...

There IS a Christolgy found in Matthew, Mark and Luke. It's not "higher" in John. John is merely more explicit and focused as his book is more theological in nature.

...And these 3 books DO pass the first 2 tests as well as the other 3. Hebrews and John do not.

I disagree with you about John. You may have a case with Hebrews. The internal and external evidence for the authorship of John is as strong, maybe stronger, than that for the other three gospels. If you reject John on authorship, you must reject Matthew, Mark and Luke as well. (Persoanlly, I'm not too concerned with Hebrews at the moment.)

Incidentally, Paul's writings do pass the tests. Once again, what ever criteria you come up with to dismiss Paul you'll have to dismiss the Gospels as well by that same criteria. The only way around this is to maintain your subjective and limited criterion of perceiving Paul as having offered out-of-line opinions and is therefore not authoritative.

If you've already adressed some of this with Salt Agent and don't feel like repeating yourself, either give me the post number and I'll go back and read it or cut and paste your response to Salt Agent. I'm cool with that to cut down on repetition.

[achilles12604]

Goose addressed many issues. However, I think that the vast majority of his issues can be boiled down to the examination of Hebrews. So unless someone objects, lets start there.

If Hebrews can be shown to adhere to the so called "criteria" for authority, then I will not object to any other books at all. If it can not, then either the "criteria" is flawed, the selectors were dishonest, or both.

I realize you and Salt Agent are having a discussion on this. So maybe I should stay out of it rather than repeating. However, you said to Salt Agent in your last post, who provided a set of criteria,

"Hebrews is anonymus. It's author is totally unknown."

If technically being anonymous disqualifies a work from being authoritative then we must discard all four Gospels as well.

Not really. You are trying to place them into the same category when they are clearly not.

The church has absolutely no idea who wrote Hebrews. They don't even have a clue where to start looking. If you can find a site claiming it knows who wrote Hebrews, and they are able to prove it, then I will certainly take you up on this point. But the fact of the matter is, that the only thing they have in common is that neither one started with "By XXXXX." Other than this, they are very different. We have outside sources which attest to Mark and Matthew. We have a great deal of internal evidence as you well know. Luke's Gospel is attested to both by outside sources and Acts. This ties in neatly with Paul's letters about the matter.

Hebrews doesn't enjoy internal reference, nor outside sources. It is a complete blank. I am sure you recognize this fact.

Granted on a scale of 1-10 with 10 being absolutely sure who wrote it, none of these books would score higher than a 4 or 5 and that is being polite. But Hebrews scores a zero. We don't even have a clue where to start looking to find an author. When you compare zero with something, you can not claim that they are in the same category like you and Salt are trying to do.

I don't have to. You have already done a lot of it for me. The high christology found in John and Hebrews is not found in Matthew, Mark or Luke...

There IS a Christology found in Matthew, Mark and Luke. It's not "higher" in John. John is merely more explicit and focused as his book is more theological in nature.

I am afraid that if you hold this opinion, you are in the minority. Allow me to cite a few places which have observed a difference in the Christology between these books.

The Case for Christ, Lee Stroble
Evidence That Demands a Verdict, Josh McDowell
One
Two

4) Christology of the Synoptists

There is a real difference between the first three Evangelists and St. John in their respective representations of our Lord.

Three
Four

I can go on but I think you get the idea. The differences in John's view of Jesus is dramatic enough to warrant two millennia of debate within the church. If you wish, I can also cite the high christology of Hebrews, but I doubt it is necessary at this point.

A good case can be made that since John was the latest written by far, that the author of this book used his own admitted bias to enhance the writings of Jesus in order to promote his own view of Jesus, one which can and probably was mostly true, but certainly distorted and exaggerated.

...And these 3 books DO pass the first 2 tests as well as the other 3. Hebrews and John do not.

I disagree with you about John. You may have a case with Hebrews. The internal and external evidence for the authorship of John is as strong, maybe stronger, than that for the other three gospels. If you reject John on authorship, you must reject Matthew, Mark and Luke as well. (Personally, I'm not too concerned with Hebrews at the moment.)

You have to be concerned with Hebrews. It was accepted as canon and the bible is inerrant. It was brought in by the same standards as Paul's writings, John, and Revelations. No fair ducking out on it now . . . tsk tsk.

But if we are going to ditch Hebrews for the moment as junk, then I would be happy to compare the evidence for John vs the other 3 Gospels. I was simply waiting to do this until we were done with Hebrews.

Incidentally, Paul's writings do pass the tests. Once again, what ever criteria you come up with to dismiss Paul you'll have to dismiss the Gospels as well by that same criteria. The only way around this is to maintain your subjective and limited criterion of perceiving Paul as having offered out-of-line opinions and is therefore not authoritative.

Yes Paul's writings do pass the first two tests according to themselves. I would even say that they pass the first two tests in reference to outside sources. Are we done with Hebrews? Shall we move on to other writings?

If you've already adressed some of this with Salt Agent and don't feel like repeating yourself, either give me the post number and I'll go back and read it or cut and paste your response to Salt Agent. I'm cool with that to cut down on repetition.

That's cool. I think that we should focus our discussion a bit. As you indicated above, we may have bitten off more than we could chew and it makes for hard reading. A proposal . . .

Shall the three of us discuss particular books authenticity first, then once we have established their authority, we can move back onto topics which Goose elaborated on above. Is this a good idea?

[Goose]

Goose addressed many issues. However, I think that the vast majority of his issues can be boiled down to the examination of Hebrews. So unless someone objects, lets start there.

I'm not sure how Hebrews is the turning point. I think it's more of red herring.

If Hebrews can be shown to adhere to the so called "criteria" for authority, then I will not object to any other books at all. If it can not, then either the "criteria" is flawed, the selectors were dishonest, or both.

There is absolutely no way that the acceptance or rejection of Hebrews should necessarily cause us to reject or accept other books. Each book should be evaluated on it's own merits for our discussion here. At best, this entire line of reasoning would cause us to question only the authority of Hebrews.

I realize you and Salt Agent are having a discussion on this. So maybe I should stay out of it rather than repeating. However, you said to Salt Agent in your last post, who provided a set of criteria,

"Hebrews is anonymus. It's author is totally unknown."

If technically being anonymous disqualifies a work from being authoritative then we must discard all four Gospels as well.

Not really. You are trying to place them into the same category when they are clearly not.

The church has absolutely no idea who wrote Hebrews. They don't even have a clue where to start looking. If you can find a site claiming it knows who wrote Hebrews, and they are able to prove it, then I will certainly take you up on this point. But the fact of the matter is, that the only thing they have in common is that neither one started with "By XXXXX." Other than this, they are very different. We have outside sources which attest to Mark and Matthew. We have a great deal of internal evidence as you well know. Luke's Gospel is attested to both by outside sources and Acts. This ties in neatly with Paul's letters about the matter.

Hebrews doesn't enjoy internal reference, nor outside sources. It is a complete blank. I am sure you recognize this fact.

OK, rather than run down another rabbit trail and turn this thread into a "Hebrews" defence let's say for the sake of argument you are correct. Let's dispose of Hebrews. Let's say for the sake of argument it shouldn't be in the Bible and should not be considered authoritative.

However, in order to dimiss Hebrews you have acknowledged that internal evidence and external references to a work and it's authorship is evidence to establish authorship and ultimately authority. Do you agree with this, yes or no?

I don't have to. You have already done a lot of it for me. The high christology found in John and Hebrews is not found in Matthew, Mark or Luke...

There IS a Christology found in Matthew, Mark and Luke. It's not "higher" in John. John is merely more explicit and focused as his book is more theological in nature.

I am afraid that if you hold this opinion, you are in the minority. Allow me to cite a few places which have observed a difference in the Christology between these books.

I said John is more EXPLICIT in Christology. You are the one that feels the Christology is DIFFERENT. You should cite the best example and we can look at it. One example of Christology found in Matthew and Luke is they both affirm immaculate conception of Jesus. Don't you think that is evidence of Christology?

The Case for Christ, Lee Stroble
Evidence That Demands a Verdict, Josh McDowell
One
Two

Your sources don't prove a different Christology only a more explicit emphasis in John - something I've been saying all along in this thread.

Taken from your number "Two" source.

There is a real difference between the first three Evangelists and St. John in their respective representations of our Lord. The truth presented by these writers may be the same, but they view it from different standpoints. The three Synoptists set forth the humanity of Christ in its obedience to the law, in its power over nature, and in its tenderness for the weak and afflicted; the fourth Gospel sets forth the life of Christ not in any of the aspects which belong to it as human, but as being the adequate expression of the glory of the Divine Person, manifested to men under a visible form. But in spite of this difference, the Synoptists by their suggestive implication practically anticipate the teaching of the Fourth Gospel. This suggestion is implied, first, in the Synoptic use of the title Son of God as applied to Jesus Christ. Jesus is the Son of God, not merely in an ethical or theocratic sense, not merely as one among many sons, but He is the only, the well-beloved Son of the Father, so that His son-ship is unshared by any other, and is absolutely unique (Matthew 3:17, 17:5; 22:41; cf. 4:3, 6; Luke 4:3, 9); it is derived from the fact that the Holy Ghost was to come upon Mary, and the power of the Most High was to overshadow her (Luke 1:35). Again, the Synoptists imply Christ's Divinity in their history of His nativity and its accompanying circumstances; He is conceived of the Holy Ghost (Luke, 1, 35), and His mother knows that all generations shall call her blessed, because the mighty one had done great things unto her (Luke 1:48). Elisabeth calls Mary blessed among women, blesses the fruit of her womb, and marvels that she herself should be visited by the mother...

Again, not a different Christology but more explicit and emphatic in John. That would be a difference in HOW it is reported not in the content or intention.

4) Christology of the Synoptists

There is a real difference between the first three Evangelists and St. John in their respective representations of our Lord.

Three

Taken from your source "Three":

Suffice it to say that many of the differences [between the theology of John and the Synoptic Gospels] may be described as either differences of emphasis (rather than of substance), or else as cases of Johannine tendency to make explicit what is implicit in the Synoptic tradition.

Sound familiar?

I don't think I represent the minority at all.

Four

I can go on but I think you get the idea. The differences in John's view of Jesus is dramatic enough to warrant two millennia of debate within the church.

Again, I don't think you can say John had a different view of Jesus. He wrote differently and expressed his views differently, yes. But he had the same fundamental view about Christ's divinity as the Synoptic writers. The only debate regarding John's authenticity and authority with in the church is initiated by those that reject John because they reject Christ's divinity first, then develop their reasons for doing so from there.

If you wish, I can also cite the high Christology of Hebrews, but I doubt it is necessary at this point.

A more explicit Christology in a work is not reason to reject the work unless one rejects Christ's divinity a priori. I get the idea that John has a more explicit Christology, not a different or invented Christology. Different people place emphasis on different things for different reasons. That doesn't mean they have embellished or exaggerated.

A good case can be made that since John was the latest written by far...

Actually, your case for a late dating of John will primarily depend upon subjective criteria such as the perception of a more developed theology and such. You have no concrete anchor in which to attach John to a very late date.

... that the author of this book used his own admitted bias to enhance the writings of Jesus in order to promote his own view of Jesus, one which can and probably was mostly true, but certainly distorted and exaggerated.

You've contradicted yourself. Something can't be true AND be distorted and exaggerated. Either the distortion/exaggeration IS true or it is not.

Why don't you present the best example you can think of in John in which he has "enhanced" the writings of Jesus and exaggerated or distorted the truth. Let's have a look.

You are running with the embellishment theory. I could make a case that John has dumbed-down some of the supernatural elements of the synoptics. In some ways John is more sober and has squandered opportunities to assert and prove Christ's' divinity.

...And these 3 books DO pass the first 2 tests as well as the other 3. Hebrews and John do not.

I disagree with you about John. You may have a case with Hebrews. The internal and external evidence for the authorship of John is as strong, maybe stronger, than that for the other three gospels. If you reject John on authorship, you must reject Matthew, Mark and Luke as well. (Personally, I'm not too concerned with Hebrews at the moment.)

You have to be concerned with Hebrews. It was accepted as canon and the bible is inerrant. It was brought in by the same standards as Paul's writings, John, and Revelations. No fair ducking out on it now . . . tsk tsk.

Oh, ok. You win. Hebrews shouldn't be in the Bible. There. Happy?

At best you've called into question the authority of Hebrews and inerrancy. Inerrancy simply means it is with out factual error. My phone book can be inerrant. That doesn't make it inspired by God. Inspiration and inerrant are not necessarily directly related. The Bible could be errant and still be inspired. The question isn't an issue of inerrancy but rather authority. That authority is primarily derived from who the author is. We don't need Hebrews or inerrancy to affirm all the major doctrines.

But if we are going to ditch Hebrews for the moment as junk, then I would be happy to compare the evidence for John vs the other 3 Gospels. I was simply waiting to do this until we were done with Hebrews.

OK begin any time. Hebrews is an attempt to get Goose to go on a wild goose chase.

Incidentally, Paul's writings do pass the tests. Once again, what ever criteria you come up with to dismiss Paul you'll have to dismiss the Gospels as well by that same criteria. The only way around this is to maintain your subjective and limited criterion of perceiving Paul as having offered out-of-line opinions and is therefore not authoritative.

Yes Paul's writings do pass the first two tests according to themselves. I would even say that they pass the first two tests in reference to outside sources. Are we done with Hebrews? Shall we move on to other writings?

Let's narrow this down. Let's look at all four gospels/Acts and Paul. If you want to introduce other works that's fine too. I don't think we even need them to affirm the major issues we have been discussing.

If you've already addressed some of this with Salt Agent and don't feel like repeating yourself, either give me the post number and I'll go back and read it or cut and paste your response to Salt Agent. I'm cool with that to cut down on repetition.

That's cool. I think that we should focus our discussion a bit. As you indicated above, we may have bitten off more than we could chew and it makes for hard reading. A proposal . . .

I'm already married but thanks for the offer. If it doesn't work out with my wife I'll let you know.

Shall the three of us discuss particular books authenticity first, then once we have established their authority, we can move back onto topics which Goose elaborated on above. Is this a good idea?

Yes. I proposed a criteria for authority in my last post. Salt Agent gave one as well. Does any one object to them or have another?

[achilles12604]

Goose addressed many issues. However, I think that the vast majority of his issues can be boiled down to the examination of Hebrews. So unless someone objects, lets start there.

I'm not sure how Hebrews is the turning point. I think it's more of red herring.

If Hebrews can be shown to adhere to the so called "criteria" for authority, then I will not object to any other books at all. If it can not, then either the "criteria" is flawed, the selectors were dishonest, or both.

There is absolutely no way that the acceptance or rejection of Hebrews should necessarily cause us to reject or accept other books. Each book should be evaluated on it's own merits for our discussion here. At best, this entire line of reasoning would cause us to question only the authority of Hebrews.

The problem is that the criteria supposedly used to select ALL of the canon, was also used to select Hebrews. If Hebrews is to be rejected, then all the books need to be re-examined and none of them can be taken for granted. It also means that the criteria used to select the books was lacking.

I still suggest my criteria is superior for this and other reasons.

However, in order to dimiss Hebrews you have acknowledged that internal evidence and external references to a work and it's authorship is evidence to establish authorship and ultimately authority. Do you agree with this, yes or no?

Sure.

I don't have to. You have already done a lot of it for me. The high christology found in John and Hebrews is not found in Matthew, Mark or Luke...

There IS a Christology found in Matthew, Mark and Luke. It's not "higher" in John. John is merely more explicit and focused as his book is more theological in nature.

I am afraid that if you hold this opinion, you are in the minority. Allow me to cite a few places which have observed a difference in the Christology between these books.

I said John is more EXPLICIT in Christology. You are the one that feels the Christology is DIFFERENT. You should cite the best example and we can look at it. One example of Christology found in Matthew and Luke is they both affirm immaculate conception of Jesus. Don't you think that is evidence of Christology?

The Case for Christ, Lee Stroble
Evidence That Demands a Verdict, Josh McDowell
One
Two

Your sources don't prove a different Christology only a more explicit emphasis in John - something I've been saying all along in this thread.

I can accept that they both contain Christology. However, the implication is that those books with extremely high Christology could have altered, invented or otherwise distorted events to make Jesus into more of what THEY wanted him to be. There are massive differences with the image of Jesus between John and Mark or Matthew. Yes they both have Christology. But John contains such a higher rate that it calls into question the honesty and accuracy of his account. After all, he did write with the intention of convincing people to believe what he wanted. This is slightly more suspect then the low Christology of Luke who simply wanted an accurate and orderly account of events.

Christology is significant because the higher the Christology, the more suspect the motive for writing and therefore the writings themselves.

Actually, your case for a late dating of John will primarily depend upon subjective criteria such as the perception of a more developed theology and such. You have no concrete anchor in which to attach John to a very late date.

Since we seem to be dismissing Hebrews, shall we now turn to John?

[Goose]

Goose addressed many issues. However, I think that the vast majority of his issues can be boiled down to the examination of Hebrews. So unless someone objects, lets start there.

I'm not sure how Hebrews is the turning point. I think it's more of red herring.

If Hebrews can be shown to adhere to the so called "criteria" for authority, then I will not object to any other books at all. If it can not, then either the "criteria" is flawed, the selectors were dishonest, or both.

There is absolutely no way that the acceptance or rejection of Hebrews should necessarily cause us to reject or accept other books. Each book should be evaluated on it's own merits for our discussion here. At best, this entire line of reasoning would cause us to question only the authority of Hebrews.

The problem is that the criteria supposedly used to select ALL of the canon, was also used to select Hebrews. If Hebrews is to be rejected, then all the books need to be re-examined and none of them can be taken for granted. It also means that the criteria used to select the books was lacking.

That could be. However, that would be another topic - canonicity. It's irrelevant to our discussions here. We are looking at heresies. And specifically core doctrinal ones.

I still suggest my criteria is superior for this and other reasons.

I'm going to be lazy and ask you to cut and paste it again. I probably missed it in another post. Hope you don't mind.

However, in order to dimiss Hebrews you have acknowledged that internal evidence and external references to a work and it's authorship is evidence to establish authorship and ultimately authority. Do you agree with this, yes or no?

Sure.

OK.

I don't have to. You have already done a lot of it for me. The high christology found in John and Hebrews is not found in Matthew, Mark or Luke...

There IS a Christology found in Matthew, Mark and Luke. It's not "higher" in John. John is merely more explicit and focused as his book is more theological in nature.

I am afraid that if you hold this opinion, you are in the minority. Allow me to cite a few places which have observed a difference in the Christology between these books.

I said John is more EXPLICIT in Christology. You are the one that feels the Christology is DIFFERENT. You should cite the best example and we can look at it. One example of Christology found in Matthew and Luke is they both affirm immaculate conception of Jesus. Don't you think that is evidence of Christology?

The Case for Christ, Lee Stroble
Evidence That Demands a Verdict, Josh McDowell
One
Two

Your sources don't prove a different Christology only a more explicit emphasis in John - something I've been saying all along in this thread.

I can accept that they both contain Christology. However, the implication is that those books with extremely high Christology could have altered, invented or otherwise distorted events to make Jesus into more of what THEY wanted him to be. There are massive differences with the image of Jesus between John and Mark or Matthew. Yes they both have Christology. But John contains such a higher rate that it calls into question the honesty and accuracy of his account. After all, he did write with the intention of convincing people to believe what he wanted. This is slightly more suspect then the low Christology of Luke who simply wanted an accurate and orderly account of events.

You Beg the Question. You have assumed that Jesus was not divine and as a result any first century writing that could have apostolic authorship is questionnable if it has a "higher" Christology. You've already assumed Jesus was not divine this is why those books give you grief.

Christology is significant because the higher the Christology, the more suspect the motive for writing and therefore the writings themselves.

That would be true for one that questioned Christ's divinity a priori. All writings have a motive. We should then dismiss the synoptic Gospels based on this criterion. They clearly have a motive - they are a proclamation.

Actually, your case for a late dating of John will primarily depend upon subjective criteria such as the perception of a more developed theology and such. You have no concrete anchor in which to attach John to a very late date.

Since we seem to be dismissing Hebrews, shall we now turn to John?

First. Let's settle on a criteria for authority. Do you have a problem with mine? Here it is again.

To be considered authoritative the work must:

1. Have apostolic and first century authorship. (at least to a reasonable degree of certainty). We'll use the same methodology for establishing authorship and dating as classical scholars use for establishing the authorship and dating of secular works. If it's linked to a first century apostle or disciple it's good-to-go.

2. Have a consistent core message with the majority of other first century works in regards to faith and practice.

3. Have no obvious factual errors.

4. Have a sober and factual demeanor with out obviously bizarre, unnecessary and absurd embellishments to the supernatural.