[Replying to post 1 by polonius]
It would seem Matthew is no more reliable than Mark, and the "Q" sayings Gospel which he and Luke seemed to have included in their accounts. Certainly not "eyewitness" reliable.
How reliable is the scriptures we have?
Moderator: Moderators
-
Elijah John
- Savant
- Posts: 12236
- Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:23 pm
- Location: New England
- Has thanked: 11 times
- Been thanked: 16 times
Re: How reliable is the scriptures we have?
Post #2 My theological positions:
-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.
I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.
-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.
I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.
Re: How reliable is the scriptures we have?
Post #3[Replying to post 1 by polonius]
Does it really even matter how reliable they are/aren't to most who follow them? These people have already decided what their truth is and how it matters to them. It could say unicorns fly on the moon and they would either believe it or justify it somehow.
I suspect even those who claim it matters already are closed off to honestly considering the opposite of their POV
Does it really even matter how reliable they are/aren't to most who follow them? These people have already decided what their truth is and how it matters to them. It could say unicorns fly on the moon and they would either believe it or justify it somehow.
I suspect even those who claim it matters already are closed off to honestly considering the opposite of their POV
-
Checkpoint
- Prodigy
- Posts: 4069
- Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2016 10:07 pm
- Has thanked: 105 times
- Been thanked: 64 times
Re: How reliable is the scriptures we have?
Post #4Menotu wrote: [Replying to post 1 by polonius]
Does it really even matter how reliable they are/aren't to most who follow them? These people have already decided what their truth is and how it matters to them. It could say unicorns fly on the moon and they would either believe it or justify it somehow.
I suspect even those who claim it matters already are closed off to honestly considering the opposite of their POV
What's good for the goose is goo for their gander.
You have described what both believers and their critics often do.
Each has what they consider their truth, and is seldom moved even an inch from it.
What they hold dear is radically different.
It is a clash of kingdoms and their values that has always been and always will be.
May God bless you!
-
brianbbs67
- Guru
- Posts: 1871
- Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2017 12:07 am
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 2 times
Post #5
I would say the bible NT, is a guide and historically somewhat reliable. What I don't like is how all churches present it as the truth in and of itself. None of the authorship and timeline is ever presented. Neither is the fact that many verses were added or changed. Knowing what I now know, organized religion seems to be organized deception at the worst or delusion at the best. Man's word about God should not be exalted as God's word. We know there are errors or discrepetiecies. We know there are additions. This begs another big question.
What were the subtractions or omissions?
Seems we choose what tickles our ears and forget to look for what can be defined as truth.
What were the subtractions or omissions?
Seems we choose what tickles our ears and forget to look for what can be defined as truth.
-
William
- Savant
- Posts: 15268
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 975 times
- Been thanked: 1801 times
- Contact:
Post #7
[Replying to post 5 ]
brianbbs67: What were the subtractions or omissions?
William: Practically everything Jesus said regarding The Knowledge of the Mysteries of The Kingdom of God.
brianbbs67: What were the subtractions or omissions?
William: Practically everything Jesus said regarding The Knowledge of the Mysteries of The Kingdom of God.
Re: How reliable is the scriptures we have?
Post #8On the fringes of both camps I would agree. But, in my experience, believers in most God based religions tend to be more like this as they perceive they have more to loose if they're wrong.Checkpoint wrote:Menotu wrote: [Replying to post 1 by polonius]
Does it really even matter how reliable they are/aren't to most who follow them? These people have already decided what their truth is and how it matters to them. It could say unicorns fly on the moon and they would either believe it or justify it somehow.
I suspect even those who claim it matters already are closed off to honestly considering the opposite of their POV
What's good for the goose is goo for their gander.
You have described what both believers and their critics often do.
Each has what they consider their truth, and is seldom moved even an inch from it.
What they hold dear is radically different.
It is a clash of kingdoms and their values that has always been and always will be.
May God bless you!
Post #9
Though they contain some history and some biography, they are certainly not entirely reliable as history or biography.
Then again, from a 21st century perspective, neither are Josephus or Suetonius or Tacitus entirely reliable.
The Gospels, though, as the writings of first century Christians, are reliable as portrayals of what 1st century Christians thought about Jesus, and their own ideas about God and their relationship with him. In this, if you are a Christian, they have value; but that value must be understood within the context of the 1st century. You cannot take a person or their work out of their context without making the necessary allowances.
Then again, from a 21st century perspective, neither are Josephus or Suetonius or Tacitus entirely reliable.
The Gospels, though, as the writings of first century Christians, are reliable as portrayals of what 1st century Christians thought about Jesus, and their own ideas about God and their relationship with him. In this, if you are a Christian, they have value; but that value must be understood within the context of the 1st century. You cannot take a person or their work out of their context without making the necessary allowances.
-
Checkpoint
- Prodigy
- Posts: 4069
- Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2016 10:07 pm
- Has thanked: 105 times
- Been thanked: 64 times
Post #10
Organised religion does not shy away from authorship or timelines.brianbbs67 wrote: I would say the bible NT, is a guide and historically somewhat reliable. What I don't like is how all churches present it as the truth in and of itself. None of the authorship and timeline is ever presented. Neither is the fact that many verses were added or changed. Knowing what I now know, organized religion seems to be organized deception at the worst or delusion at the best. Man's word about God should not be exalted as God's word. We know there are errors or discrepetiecies. We know there are additions. This begs another big question.
What were the subtractions or omissions?
Seems we choose what tickles our ears and forget to look for what can be defined as truth.
Plenty of these are presented on the internet, which may also cover the other problems you mention.
We; that is, believers and their critics, define truth differently. Thus it should come as no surprise that we may clash on whether this or that is deception or delusion, and/or whether the deduction made is valid or invalid.
