Can you believe in the infallabilty of the bible?

[1robin]

These posts are so long it is hard to address anything with enough depth to be meaningful.

Almost every text contains contradictions. John contains some gnostic teachings. I have no idea what "pedigree" you're talking about. Scholars have identified the veracity of Thomas for some time now.

So the book in the bible sucks but the one that didn't make it is great. WOW If John is so contradictory it should be easy to lay a good one on me. Here is an excerpt from a neutral site:
The Coptic language text, the second of seven contained in what modern-day scholars have designated as Codex II, is composed of 114 sayings attributed to Jesus.[2] Almost half of these sayings resemble those found in the Canonical Gospels, while it is speculated that the other sayings were added from Gnostic tradition. Its place of origin may have been Syria, where Thomasine traditions were strong. The introduction states: "These are the hidden words that the living Jesus spoke and Didymos Judas Thomas wrote them down." Didymus (Greek) and Thomas (Aramaic) both mean "twin". Some critical scholars suspect that this reference to the Apostle Thomas is false, and that therefore the true author is unknown.
Gospel of Thomas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is only a couple of the many contentions that show it as unreliable that can be found at the site.

I don't get my information from the internet. My information comes from seminary professors, textbooks, commentaries and scholarly journals

That is very inefficient because all that stuff is on the internet. Since by your method alone you could not access more than 5% of what you could if you used the internet then are you not being more narrow than others.

As I said, Thomas is useful in helping to determine which quotations of Jesus are likely to be authentic, because it shares a common source with Q, that is very, very early -- less than 10 years following the death of Jesus. It can also be cross-referenced to Mark in some instances.
If you don't understand the significance of that, there's no further use in my discussing it with you.

If Thomas could be shown to be reliable and overcome all it's current issues which are of a nature thst it is unlikely then maybe so. However as it satands it has no ability to clarify the bible.

Yes. It is. There are too many attestations in common with other sources.

I think you are confusing the fact of not completely bogus with reasonably reliable. There are countless fictional books that have countless real facts in them. Didn't make them true.

Well, randomly-selected internet sources are certainly more reliable than any peer-reviewed scholarly article or text book on the subject. (Irony meter pegs the scale here)

And everyone knows those are not on the internet anywhere. Are you familiar with the internet beyond this forum at all?

Oh, well, I suppose not nearly as much weight as you attribute to the randomly-selected internet people. Check out names like Rob't. Miller, Rob't. Funk, Brandon Scott, John Crossan, David Rhoads, John Kloppenborg, etc.

I have lost track of what this is about. I was discussing the availability of info by which to gauge competence given in a post you made. Now your have declared a scholar war I guess and are throwing names at me. Why?

"Trusted" in what way?

In a way that makes what it contains very reliable.

Define precisely what you mean by what might be "reasonable."

The scholar wars have been escalated to semantic Armageddon. Reasonable means sufficiently adequate for the purpose.

Christianity is inherently "Eastern."

But nor Oriental. That is the more meaningful qualifier.

Yeah, I remember my first joint, too.

What the heck was this? A punt.

Oh, you mean stuff like accepting homosexuals as normal, OK people just as they are?
Maybe you think it was the conservatives who started the Civil Rights Mvt. and got women the vote?

I knew it. You’re an anything goes liberal. I would love to pursue this but I do not have time. I encourage you to bring it up again sometime especially since the conservative, republican, theist (prob Christian) Lincoln freed the slaves and all.

Got news for ya: Truth is relative. Ask Einstein

. Apparently you do not research science on the net either. That is not what TOR says in anyway. So by your standards are you claiming that truth as an absolute category does not exist?

Exclusion without extreme scrutiny is destructive 99.9% of the time. Ask the Shakers. But you'll have to go to the "extinct" district to find one.

I agree with the first sentence. Did I say it or you? The connection with the other sentences is lost on me.
I just realised that since whether something is in or out of the canon has no effect on whether anyone can adopt it what is the purpose of most of your contentions. Jealosy?

 

[sojourner]

do you consider yourself as a Born Again Christian?

Of course. Do you understand that one can be as fully Christian as you and still hold vastly different ideas as to theology and doctrine?

I find it necessary as extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Those claims are ours, though, not God's. And we can only claim God as we understand God -- which -- even as the bible tells us is an incomplete understanding.

I agree there is some uncertainty to some authors but most are thought to be who is traditionaly credited and virtually all are believed to be written by reliable eyewitnesses of Christ.

There is not only uncertainty, but a complete lack of anything other than speculation as to who wrote anything other than Luke-Acts, Romans, 1-2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, Philemon and Revelation. And we know little about Paul, Luke and John of Patmos. Most scholars don't agree that the "credits" are reasonably authentic. Most scholars disagree that the NT was written by "eyewitnesses." 1 Thess. is the earliest book we have, written by Paul, and he was certainly not an eyewitness. Mark is the earliest gospel we have, and it was written post 70 c.e. -- 40 years following the events. Only the sources for Q and Thomas could have been eyewitnesses -- and they didn't do the writing.

Then why are they not in given that my standards are their standards that you say these meet.

Because, ultimately, the decision was political and not theological.

Study defined the narrowness not the other way around. The canon in no way imposes any restriction on study.

I meant study at the other end. Most folks are unfamiliar with the contents of the texts that are extra-canonical. It's a loss that is unfortunate.

Because it made it the standard.

A standard of what? A standard for what? A standard, certainly, but only a standard (originally) of "stuff we can read in church," not an exclusionary standard of what is sacred and what isn't.

A person trying to criticise Christianity or scholarly critique it studies the Gospels because they were cannonized. The fact they are still standing and their critics are dust means their reliablity is iron clad.

Don't kid yourself. There's still plenty of scholarly speculation going on. The only thing that's "iron-clad" is their inclusion in the canon. Why? "because it's in the canon." The canon has come to mean something that is untouchable. Even if there came to light irrefutable evidence that Luke-Acts was just wrong, they wouldn't take it out of the bible. It would rock the boat too much. The reason, as I said, is political, not theological.

All I have as evidence of that is a statement you made that by the way was not in the original assertion. I have no reason to doubt your honesty but as far
as God and his word goes I test everything and that can't be done with your friends.

As long as you continue to hold the texts, themselves to a higher standard than the people who wrote them and study them, your head is firmly in the sand.

I have 190 sem hrs in secondary math ed, and electrical eng. In between posts I trouble shoot a 5 million dollar testing system for F-15s that includes a rubidium gas oscillator among other things I am also an amateur history concentrating on military conflict. None of that nor anything above a fifth grade education is needed to know that a mere assertion without somekind of validation is meaningless. It might be true but it cannot be thought to be adopted as such without justification.

Then you must know the relative value of random internet sources vs. peer-reviewed scholarship. Hate to say it, but if you treat your work on F-15s with the same apparently lackadaisical approach as you do your biblical research, I'm glad I'm not an eagle driver. You're claiming belief as irrefutable fact, based upon inadequate research here. Your statements simply don't hold up under decent scholarship. A wing whose aerodynamics are not properly researched won't hold up the airplane, either.

Everyone knows X is used for Christ but where is the y and why is it meaningful. It might very well be but it is sure not prevelant.

"X"(Christ) (ianit)"Y"
Same process for "Xtian."

when compared with 15 million killed by the atheistic Stalin alone it kind of shrinks in impact.

No it doesn't. If you think that's true, ask their surviving families.

since neither were supported by the bible what does it have to do with it or God?

Oh, but they thought it did, just as slavery, the subjugation of women, and discrimination against Jews is biblically justified. My point was, when the mind set is that "all must believe exactly the same thing," we run into these sorts of totalitarian bullschtick tactics. This is the same kind of krap that drove the gnostics, the Pellagians and others into near oblivion. And we've lost the beauty and truth that was made available through those expressions.

Truth is approx 99% of the time a tiny slice of the potential answers. Truth is almost always the exception. I have no comment on the size of truth vs perception.

Methinks you're confusing "fact" with "truth." As a mathematician, you are aware that there is only one right answer to a problem. That right answer is a fact that represents truth. But truth is much, much larger than that one fact.

What kind of metaphysical idea is this. There is one X for X=2 that is true. There are infinate Xs that are false.

Again, confusing "fact" with "truth." "X=2" is a fact. As a fact it is true, but more than that fact, 1+2 also = 2, and 4-2 also = 2, and 1x2 also = 2. all those facts point to the truth of the value "2."

Not exclusively but they certainly are in the mix of all the things that he was alluding to IMO as well as most commentators.

Tell you what: I promise not to work on fighter jets, if you promise not to play at exegesis.
Jesus was talking about orthopraxis here, not orthodoxy. It's a bad example that doesn't support your point.

Conservatives are the ones that CONSERVE the truth.

Translation: CONSERVE = "to hermetically seal a perceived truth so that it can't breathe and live and grow with the society it purports to inform."

Liberals are the ones who pollute the truth with the LIBERAL incorporation of half or false truths.

Translation: LIBERAL = "liberate." "To liberate truth from the state in which it has been entombed so that it can serve humankind."
That is what the names imply in this context.

If something is not uniform with Christianity is not true and should not be included with it. That is what the term means. Consistency what a crazy concept.

have you ever considered that "Christianity" has been too narrowly-defined? have you ever considered that, just like a quilt is comprised of many widely diverse pieces of cloth, uniformity =/= unity?

I am starting to think the God you believe in isn't the same as mine exactly.

Which is precisely my point. God is much, much bigger than either you or I imagine, than you and I imagine, and that any one congregation, denomination, or religion imagines. That's OK. Otherwise, we end up stuffing God into a box that's much too small, and making God do stuff that we want God to do. Don't know about you, but I'm comforted by the wide and surprising variety I find in the spiritual dimension of humanity.

 

[Me Myself]

If I didn´t care lying to myself a lot I guess I could.

I prefer to not be highly deluded though.

 

[sojourner]

So the book in the bible sucks but the one that didn't make it is great.

I didn't say that. I merely pointed out that there are gnostic tendencies in both texts.

This is only a couple of the many contentions that show it as unreliable that can be found at the site.

The fact that there are many similarities is a PLUS, not a negative!

That is very inefficient because all that stuff is on the internet.

No. It isn't.

Since by your method alone you could not access more than 5% of what you could if you used the internet then are you not being more narrow than others.

Out of how many possible answers are right answers? If I have access to 5% of what's out there, it's the most reliable and best peer-reviewed 5%.

If Thomas could be shown to be reliable and overcome all it's current issues which are of a nature thst it is unlikely then maybe so. However as it satands it has no ability to clarify the bible.

It's at least as reliable as Q. If you think it hasn't "clarified the bible," you know less than you think.

I think you are confusing the fact of not completely bogus with reasonably reliable. There are countless fictional books that have countless real facts in them. Didn't make them true.

And there are countless non-fiction books that have countless mistakes in them. So what? Doesn't make them "fiction."

And everyone knows those are not on the internet anywhere. Are you familiar with the internet beyond this forum at all?

I don't consider them "internet resources," because they are written first and posted as links later. Any yahoo can write a bogus article, publish it to the internet, call it "factual" -- then have any other unsuspecting yahoo go to that website, take it at face value, and call it "factual." Peer-reviewed stuff is more tightly-controlled than that.

I have lost track of what this is about. I was discussing the availability of info by which to gauge competence given in a post you made. Now your have declared a scholar war I guess and are throwing names at me. Why?

You wanted sources. These are people who are widely considered by the academic community to know their stuff.

In a way that makes what it contains very reliable.

I'd have to say that the fact that it is highly congruent with canon gospels proves its reliability.

The scholar wars have been escalated to semantic Armageddon. Reasonable means sufficiently adequate for the purpose.

This is very telling, since the document was not available at the time for such scrutiny. And its status as "non-canonical" has tainted its reputation since it was discovered, in conservative circles.

What the heck was this? A punt.

No. It means that I saw stuff that wasn't real, too. It's a pejorative joke, poking fun at your illusory critique of liberalism.

I knew it. You’re an anything goes liberal.

I knew it. You're a pucker-factor conservative.

are you claiming that truth as an absolute category does not exist?

Truth is relative.

I agree with the first sentence. Did I say it or you?

You said, "inclusion without extreme scrutiny is destructive 99.9% of the time." The last part of my statement shows how you're wrong. The Shakers were a closed community, who believed in strict separation, even between the males and females. They died out.

My NT prof (who is widely-regarded in his field) says this: "The bible has lasted, not because it is true, but because it lends itself to multiple interpretations."

Chew on that a while.

 

[1robin]

Of course. Do you understand that one can be as fully Christian as you and still hold vastly different ideas as to theology and doctrine?

Yes. However I usually find people who I dissagree with to leter admit they are not. Usually the works salvation crowd.

Those claims are ours, though, not God's. And we can only claim God as we understand God -- which -- even as the bible tells us is an incomplete understanding.

Which claims?

There is not only uncertainty, but a complete lack of anything other than speculation as to who wrote anything other than Luke-Acts, Romans, 1-2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, Philemon and Revelation. And we know little about Paul, Luke and John of Patmos. Most scholars don't agree that the "credits" are reasonably authentic. Most scholars disagree that the NT was written by "eyewitnesses." 1 Thess. is the earliest book we have, written by Paul, and he was certainly not an eyewitness. Mark is the earliest gospel we have, and it was written post 70 c.e. -- 40 years following the events. Only the sources for Q and Thomas could have been eyewitnesses -- and they didn't do the writing.

I dissagree. I had to research this in depth recently and I find most of the authors very reliable but I am buned out on the subject. My NIV bible grants all the traditional authors as known except acts I think.

Because, ultimately, the decision was political and not theological.

So you know of seperate set of standards that you can prove the bible was decided by. I am waiting for the old Constantine issue where is it? Since the books meet the standard I posted I find your claim unlikely.

I meant study at the other end. Most folks are unfamiliar with the contents of the texts that are extra-canonical. It's a loss that is unfortunate.

You are asserting the contention as settled.

A standard of what? A standard for what? A standard, certainly, but only a standard (originally) of "stuff we can read in church," not an exclusionary standard of what is sacred and what isn't.

Since it is not an exclusionary standard for what you can read that is an argument for me position.

Don't kid yourself. There's still plenty of scholarly speculation going on. The only thing that's "iron-clad" is their inclusion in the canon. Why? "because it's in the canon." The canon has come to mean something that is untouchable. Even if there came to light irrefutable evidence that Luke-Acts was just wrong, they wouldn't take it out of the bible. It would rock the boat too much. The reason, as I said, is political, not theological.

I disagree.

As long as you continue to hold the texts, themselves to a higher standard than the people who wrote them and study them, your head is firmly in the sand.

When did my standards get in the mix?

Then you must know the relative value of random internet sources vs. peer-reviewed scholarship. Hate to say it, but if you treat your work on F-15s with the same apparently lackadaisical approach as you do your biblical research, I'm glad I'm not an eagle driver. You're claiming belief as irrefutable fact, based upon inadequate research here. Your statements simply don't hold up under decent scholarship. A wing whose aerodynamics are not properly researched won't hold up the airplane, either.

The internet contains peer reviewed research and far more of it than you have available without it. There is no advantage possible to rejecting the internet if you are capable of seperating good and bad information. To claim the higher conservative standard that results in less more reliable information is consistent with lacksadaisical is nuts. They are inverses.

"X"(Christ) (ianit)"Y"
Same process for "Xtian."

This concept is getting more bizarre as we go along. Actually I looked it up. I know it is an legititamate but obscure idea.

No it doesn't. If you think that's true, ask their surviving families

If you remember we are discussing world views not each individuals relative feelings it is true. You have context schizophrenia.

Oh, but they thought it did, just as slavery, the subjugation of women, and discrimination against Jews is biblically justified. My point was, when the mind set is that "all must believe exactly the same thing," we run into these sorts of totalitarian bullschtick tactics. This is the same kind of krap that drove the gnostics, the Pellagians and others into near oblivion. And we've lost the beauty and truth that was made available through those expressions.

I can claim or even think that the Hamburgler told me to blow up Calif. That has no bearing on the Hamburgler unless he did indeed say it. The bible says do not murder if I murder the bible is not in any way implicatable. What if someone said your words meant for them to kill all the seals at the zoo. Will you accept responsability for it.

Methinks you're confusing "fact" with "truth." As a mathematician, you are aware that there is only one right answer to a problem. That right answer is a fact that represents truth. But truth is much, much larger than that one fact.

This is completely dependant on what the claim is and does not apply to the one I made and most in real life.

Again, confusing "fact" with "truth." "X=2" is a fact. As a fact it is true, but more than that fact, 1+2 also = 2, and 4-2 also = 2, and 1x2 also = 2. all those facts point to the truth of the value "2."

All this stuff is conditionaly correct. However with my assumptions as to the nature of x they aren't. Since you didn't know that because I didn't state it then I will accept the math but the implication is conditional.

Tell you what: I promise not to work on fighter jets, if you promise not to play at exegesis.

I do not care if you work on jets I don't fly.

Jesus was talking about orthopraxis here, not orthodoxy. It's a bad example that doesn't support your point.

I don't have to go back now to find how your wrong so timeout until I get more time on this.

Translation: CONSERVE = "to hermetically seal a perceived truth so that it can't breathe and live and grow with the society it purports to inform."

Oh yeah convert your grandfather into your grandmother and then......
Why would I accept this inaccurate biased translation.

Translation: LIBERAL = "liberate." "To liberate truth from the state in which it has been entombed so that it can serve humankind."
That is what the names imply in this context.

Only if both of us are in your head.

have you ever considered that "Christianity" has been too narrowly-defined? have you ever considered that, just like a quilt is comprised of many widely diverse pieces of cloth, uniformity =/= unity?

it is over 700,000 words containing the most profound and contentous claims in human history. It has not been entirely understood even collectively. You and I sure do not know everything about what we have why get more. If you have found God and are going to heaven what is it that is potentially missing that we need. I fing the bible completely suffecient. I do not rule out any legitamacy for things outside of the bible. However since no one knows all of the things we do have why get more that we won't. There are some philisophical reasons why additional info is unneeded but my hands are tired.

Which is precisely my point. God is much, much bigger than either you or I imagine, than you and I imagine, and that any one congregation, denomination, or religion imagines. That's OK. Otherwise, we end up stuffing God into a box that's much too small, and making God do stuff that we want God to do. Don't know about you, but I'm comforted by the wide and surprising variety I find in the spiritual dimension of humanity.

I do not reject 95% of denominations. If I am going to wager my soul on some words. I would feel comfortable with less more reliable texts rather than many somewhat reliable ones and no way to understand it all. I tell you what when we fully understand what we have then we can look for more. I am getting a headache and can't think as clearly and so that's it for today.

 

[Curious George]

Robin:

I am on vacation right now but jumped online and saw your response to my post. I am not saying the bible is fallible, inaccurate, or invalid, nor am I suggesting that the gospels and texts found in 1945 are reliable, accurate, or valid. I am simply suggesting that all of your arguments in your post were not logical.

On vacation, if you are really interested in me showing you exactly why they were thus, then I will when I return from my vacation.

 

[Shermana]

A person trying to criticise Christianity or scholarly critique it studies the Gospels because they were cannonized. The fact they are still standing and their critics are dust means their reliablity is iron clad.

So by that logic you would believe the Quran is authentic too, right? How about the Bhagavad Gita?

Yes. However I usually find people who I dissagree with to leter admit they are not. Usually the works salvation crowd.

Do they actually admit that they don't believe that Yashua was Christ or do they admit something that you interpret to not be "Christian"?

 

[sojourner]

Which claims?

It is our claim that the texts are infallible -- not God's claim.

My NIV bible grants all the traditional authors as known except acts I think.

For reliable information as to authorship, you might check out the Anchor Bible Commentary. If you want less thick reading, pick up a copy of Stephen Harris' The New Testament: A Student's Introduction.

Since it is not an exclusionary standard for what you can read that is an argument for me position.

They are excluded as authoritative an any way. Which was not the original intent of the canon.

When did my standards get in the mix?

When you began making baseless claims.

The internet contains peer reviewed research and far more of it than you have available without it. There is no advantage possible to rejecting the internet if you are capable of seperating good and bad information. To claim the higher conservative standard that results in less more reliable information is consistent with lacksadaisical is nuts. They are inverses.

99% of that information is accessible only through library sites. It entails a lot more than a cursory glance at "some web sites."

I can claim or even think that the Hamburgler told me to blow up Calif. That has no bearing on the Hamburgler unless he did indeed say it. The bible says do not murder if I murder the bible is not in any way implicatable. What if someone said your words meant for them to kill all the seals at the zoo. Will you accept responsability for it.

What if the bible "says that homosexuals are an abomination?"

I do not care if you work on jets I don't fly.

Sooo... you care not for your fellow pilots. Wonderful. Glad you're not my wing man.

Why would I accept this inaccurate biased translation.

You assume that I would accept yours, yes?

You and I sure do not know everything about what we have why get more. If you have found God and are going to heaven what is it that is potentially missing that we need.

You're completely missing the point. There is no "goal" in spiritual endeavor. As Christians, we haven't "met the bill" just by "getting into heaven." Our work is to take the journey -- to discover as much as we can about God, ourselves, and others. The more information we have, the better we are able to do that.

I would feel comfortable with less more reliable texts rather than many somewhat reliable ones and no way to understand it all.

Spiritual formation is, in part, about afflicting the comfortable.

 

[1robin]

So by that logic you would believe the Quran is authentic too, right? How about the Bhagavad Gita?

One thing is not equivalent to the other. The bible is the most highly scrutinized work in human history of any type by far. Very very good scholars from both sides had rigorously investigated it. Nothing has overturned it except for the 5% errors that I have alluded to. To illustrate this modern bibles identify every questionable verse with foot notes. Can the same be said for the Quran or Bhagavad Gita? Since Islam is enforced by the state in many cases and since apostasy is punishable by death I do not find the scholarship equivalent. Unlike Christianity to a great extent the Bhagavad Gita is accepted by cultural consent and is not subjected to anything like what the bible has triumphed over. However if you can show these ideas incorrect I will of course consider it as I am certainly not a Bhagavad Gita scholar. I am am reasonably familiar with the Quran and I think my points are accurate.

Do they actually admit that they don't believe that Yashua was Christ or do they admit something that you interpret to not be "Christian"?

I do not want to get into this. It is contentious, it can be offensive and may violate some forum rules. I try not to judge whether a person is a Christian or not but as the bible says the non spiritual (born again) can't understand spiritual things it has a great impact on the discussion. I ask only in certain cases mainly for clarification and I never challenge what ever a person claims.

 

[1robin]

Robin:

I am on vacation right now but jumped online and saw your response to my post. I am not saying the bible is fallible, inaccurate, or invalid, nor am I suggesting that the gospels and texts found in 1945 are reliable, accurate, or valid. I am simply suggesting that all of your arguments in your post were not logical.

On vacation, if you are really interested in me showing you exactly why they were thus, then I will when I return from my vacation.

This is so general that I can give no reply. Have a good vacation and let me know of any contentions when you get back.

 

[1robin]

It is our claim that the texts are infallible -- not God's claim.

It is not my claim the texts are infallible. I claim the original revelations were. There is an infinite amount of info about that. Dr James white or the Chicago statement of faith is a good start.

For reliable information as to authorship, you might check out the Anchor Bible Commentary. If you want less thick reading, pick up a copy of Stephen Harris' The New Testament: A Student's Introduction.

I have many places and people I already trust. They generally claim most authors traditionally know are reliable and explain why. I will look into your sources if I get the opportunity.

They are excluded as authoritative an any way. Which was not the original intent of the canon.

Unless it was, there is almost no use for a canon. The first sentence at wiki says this:
A biblical canon, or canon of scripture,[1] is a list of books considered to be authoritative scripture by a particular religious community
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon
Don't bother trying to dismiss wiki concerning this topic is unreliable. A topic this important and well known has been combed over a thousand times and is very accurate at this point. I could find the def of or purpose of the canon in countless other places as well.

When you began making baseless claims.

This was about the standards that were used for the canon. I did not exist then and my standards today are the same as theirs so again this is not applicable.

99% of that information is accessible only through library sites. It entails a lot more than a cursory glance at "some web sites."

I am familiar with peer review and scholarship. If you can discern the difference between scholarship and propaganda the net is the largest library on earth. If you favor a particular person or bias then maybe the net isn't a good place.

What if the bible "says that homosexuals are an abomination?"

Then that would accurately describe how God feels. I did not see a instruction to action in that statement.

Sooo... you care not for your fellow pilots. Wonderful. Glad you're not my wing man.

Since I was joking and there is no way anyone unqualified is getting near a Pratt & Whitney f-100 I think the pilots are ok.

You assume that I would accept yours, yes?

Your example of hyperbole compelled mine. I would not have sunk that low without help.

You're completely missing the point. There is no "goal" in spiritual endeavor. As Christians, we haven't "met the bill" just by "getting into heaven." Our work is to take the journey -- to discover as much as we can about God, ourselves, and others. The more information we have, the better we are able to do that.

I agree the journey has value but the comparative value is very unequal. You still have not given a single example of what is gained by Thomas or any other non-biblical work. Since it's reliability does not rise to the level of being able to comment on the bile it is powerless to do so. I actually know a very good answer but I am not helping counter myself. If you surrender I will tell you.

Spiritual formation is, in part, about afflicting the comfortable.

That sounds very poetic and cosmopolitan but what is its application.

Gospel of Thomas from the blue letter bible. Probably the most respected online biblical site in existance.

There were books written during the Old Testament period that claimed the author was actually a biblical character. However these works were nothing but forgeries. These forgeries were known as Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. We find the same sort of thing happening during the New Testament era. Writers would claim that their work was actually the work of one of the New Testament characters when, in actuality, it was a forgery. Therefore we also have the New Testament Pseudepigrapha.
There Were Many False Gospels, Acts, Letters, and Apocalypses
There were numerous false gospels, false Acts of the Apostles, false letters and apocalypses that circulated in the early church. One of the most important of the New Testament Pseudepigrapha is, "The Gospel of Thomas."
The Gospel of Thomas
The Gospel of Thomas was probably composed in Edessa in Syria about A.D. 140. Consisting of 114 sayings of Jesus, it is the most extensive collection of non-biblical sayings of Jesus that still exist. The Gospel of Thomas begins as follows.

These are the secret words which the living Jesus spoke and Didymus Judas Thomas wrote. And he said: Whosoever finds the explanation of these words shall not taste death.
​

We know that the Gospel of Thomas is a forgery for the following reasons.
There Was a Secret Approach to the Message of Jesus
The secret approach found in the Gospel of Thomas is typical of the writings of the Gnostics – although there is some questions as to whether this work is a Gnostic writing. The four Gospels are open about the ways of salvation and the kingdom of God while the Gospel of Thomas views truth from a hidden vantage point.
There Is No Historical Setting for the Sayings
There is no historical setting for the statements. The Gospel of Thomas is a compilation of sayings without the inclusion of important historical events as recorded in the Gospels. We are not told when. or under what circumstances, the statements were made.
The Teaching Often Contradicts the Four Gospels
Many of the sayings are contradictory to those we have in the Gospels. For example, saying 114 says:

Jesus said, ‘See, I shall lead her, so that I will make her male, that she too many become a living spirit, resembling you males. For every woman who makes herself male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.'
​

It Presents A Different Jesus
The person of Jesus Christ is different than the one revealed in the Gospels. In the Gospels Jesus is God the Son, Second Person of the Trinity. In the Gospel of Thomas He is one who points the way by which an individual can attain the knowledge of God.
These reasons, along with many others, demonstrate that the Gospel of Thomas is a forgery rather than a legitimate work written by one of Jesus' apostles.
Summary
After the New Testament period, there were a number of works that arose that claimed to have been written by someone who was mentioned in the New Testament. However the works are forgeries. These forgeries are known as the New Testament Pseudepigrapha. There are a number of gospels, acts, letters, and apocalypses that use the name of a biblical character as its author. Yet that person did not write the particular work that has his name on it.
One of the most prominent of these forgeries is the Gospel of Thomas. This work is supposedly a number of secret sayings of Jesus that are recorded by the disciple Thomas. Yet there is no evidence whatsoever of their authenticity.
Blue Letter Bible - Help, Tutorials, and FAQs
I do not think anymore is required but I can provide plenty as I have been looking into this "gospel" quite a bit. I believe you are a Christian and you are an intelligent person but I just don't understand how you can be so liberal about what you think speaks for God.

 

[sojourner]

It is not my claim the texts are infallible. I claim the original revelations were.

Nonetheless, it is your claim -- not God's.

Unless it was, there is almost no use for a canon. The first sentence at wiki says this:
A biblical canon, or canon of scripture,[1] is a list of books considered to be authoritative scripture by a particular religious community
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon
Don't bother trying to dismiss wiki concerning this topic is unreliable. A topic this important and well known has been combed over a thousand times and is very accurate at this point. I could find the def of or purpose of the canon in countless other places as well.

1) The original intent simply didn't judge what wasn't in the canon beyond a quite simplistic standard. You are claiming that non-canonical texts possess "no authority whatsoever." The original intent was far softer. More like, "canon books possess sure authority. Non-canonical books possess a less certain authority."
2) Then, pray tell, why does an accredited graduate seminary not consider Wikipedia to be an adequate source of reliable exegetical information?

This was about the standards that were used for the canon. I did not exist then and my standards today are the same as theirs

Wrong. See above.

If you can discern the difference between scholarship and propaganda the net is the largest library on earth. If you favor a particular person or bias then maybe the net isn't a good place.

I haven't seen any sure indication from your posts that you are equipped for such discernment. You seem to come at this from a particular bias. Perhaps the net isn't such a good choice for you?

Then that would accurately describe how God feels. I did not see a instruction to action in that statement.

I thought they were to be put to death.

the bible also condones slavery. Perhaps we should let certain demographics know, so they can plan for their future lives based upon "what God feels."

Since I was joking and there is no way anyone unqualified is getting near a Pratt & Whitney f-100 I think the pilots are ok.

Would that the biblical exegetical process employed the same safeguards...

Your example of hyperbole compelled mine. I would not have sunk that low without help.

You threw down the first gauntlet of conservative "superiority" and liberal "inferiority."

I agree the journey has value but the comparative value is very unequal.

So? We are not all the same, are we?

You still have not given a single example of what is gained by Thomas or any other non-biblical work.

If that's your take on the example I've given, perhaps you'd better put down the exegetical screwdriver and step away from the textual Pratt & Whitney.

Since it's reliability does not rise to the level of being able to comment on the bile it is powerless to do so.

I've shown how it is reliable, and how it does inform biblical authenticity.

That sounds very poetic and cosmopolitan but what is its application.

It's application is getting out of your comfort zone and broadening your horizons.

Gospel of Thomas from the blue letter bible.

Well that's very nice and all, but the Blue Letter Bible is obviously a product of fundamental origin with an agenda. None of the "scholars" I could find listed are heavy hitters in the scholastic community.

I believe you are a Christian and you are an intelligent person but I just don't understand how you can be so liberal about what you think speaks for God.

It comes with education.

 

[1robin]

Nonetheless, it is your claim -- not God's.

New Living Translation (©2007)
All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right 2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
"I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name." (Ps 138:2)
"Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." (Proverbs 30:5-6)
The Preserved Word of God
God kind of dissagrees. There are ten verses for every one I posted that said God gave pure revelation.

1) The original intent simply didn't judge what wasn't in the canon beyond a quite simplistic standard. You are claiming that non-canonical texts possess "no authority whatsoever." The original intent was far softer. More like, "canon books possess sure authority. Non-canonical books possess a less certain authority."

You said they were not meant as authority at all I am glad to see you have recalibrated. A simplistic but completely adaquite and suffecient standard. Less sure authority is relative. If the level was agreeable I could concur with this claim.

2) Then, pray tell, why does an accredited graduate seminary not consider Wikipedia to be an adequate source of reliable exegetical information?

That's nuts. Much of the info in wiki is from accredited scholars. I would bet that 80% plus are on wiki frequently.

Wrong. See above.

I did and it didn't help.

I haven't seen any sure indication from your posts that you are equipped for such discernment. You seem to come at this from a particular bias. Perhaps the net isn't such a good choice for you?

Whatever else I am my interpretation is not biased. I developed my understanding independantly in a vacume with God and the bible and with no agenda but have found my positions to be almost identical to orthedox protestant doctrine. Which is widely accepted.

I thought they were to be put to death.

Maybe if you lived in Israel 2500 years ago. All that new covenant stuff and all.

the bible also condones slavery. Perhaps we should let certain demographics know, so they can plan for their future lives based upon "what God feels."

If you really want to get countered keep on the slavery issue. I just finished a study on biblical slavery and your claims were quite destroyed.

Would that the biblical exegetical process employed the same safeguards...

Either way your not getting near either. I kid, I kid.

You threw down the first gauntlet of conservative "superiority" and liberal "inferiority."

I don't remember but the rediculous characterisations were all you at least at the start.

So? We are not all the same, are we?

I do not know what this has to do with the other but it is pretty safe to say so I guess.

If that's your take on the example I've given, perhaps you'd better put down the exegetical screwdriver and step away from the textual Pratt & Whitney.

Not bad. I understood it I have no idea what you were doing with it. Of course revelation makes people uncomfortable. Saying that is a primary purpose is bizarre.

I've shown how it is reliable, and how it does inform biblical authenticity.

No you didn't you just said it did.

It's application is getting out of your comfort zone and broadening your horizons

You are talking to someone who has jumped out of a plane at 15,000 feet, flown at 380 knots at 10 feet in a plane the size of a kite, and sank a boat I was on at the time. I live outside a comfort zone. Seriously a comfort zone has no application for me unless you consider high reliablity for what I wager my soul on as such. I even had a satanist send me a book he wrote for the love. I also spealise in military history. There is nothing comfortzoneish about me.

Well that's very nice and all, but the Blue Letter Bible is obviously a product of fundamental origin with an agenda. None of the "scholars" I could find listed are heavy hitters in the scholastic community.

We there are about 500 hundred more sites if you want to arbitrarily dismiss them as well that say the same thing.

It comes with education.

Then why is it a very well known fact that as the education level increases so does the probability that the person is a conservative. Since the world is 90% garbage then as we learn we reduce that garbage, the other way around is not logical but may be more politically correct. Kind of reminds me of all the people who accused the Chick Filet guy who said (he believed that marriage was a man and a woman) of being intolerant and so they showed their tolerance by being intolerant towards him. Here is one: Liberalism is a perfect storm of disfuntion where a criminal can't be executed but a child may be aborted. Yes I await your rebuttal for the conservatives.

So far you have dismissed the standards used by the Church fathers that have endured under withering scrutiny.
You have dismissed the Blue Letter Bible
You have dismissed WIKI
And you say my standards of exegesis are incorrect.
Who's next John or Paul. That was a joke but I have had several "Christians" do that as well as large sections of other new and old testament books that is why I ask sometimes. Anyway, Shalom

 

[sojourner]

God kind of dissagrees. There are ten verses for every one I posted that said God gave pure revelation.

I see what you're saying, and on one hand I sort of agree. But I think we have to be very careful at separating out "what God says" from "what others tell us God says." The biblical texts clearly fall into the latter category, unless you believe the bible fell out of the sky in King James English. Just "because the bible says its authoritative" is circular logic, and doesn't work. The bible has authority because we believe it to have authority. And yet, even with that imbued authority, the bible is neither infallible, nor the exact, direct words of God.

You said they were not meant as authority at all I am glad to see you have recalibrated. A simplistic but completely adaquite and suffecient standard. Less sure authority is relative. If the level was agreeable I could concur with this claim.

Well, that's the problem I have with your posts. It appears to me that you're saying that the canon is an "all or nothing" approach to authority. Historically, though, we know that's just not the case. The canon texts had more authority, such that it was OK to read them in church. The extra-canonical texts had less authority -- not 0 authority.

That's nuts. Much of the info in wiki is from accredited scholars. I would bet that 80% plus are on wiki frequently.

Yeah, but the problem is that there's no way to separate the flotsam from the good stuff. You'd still need a lot of published materials to check against, so why bother?

Whatever else I am my interpretation is not biased. I developed my understanding independantly in a vacume with God and the bible and with no agenda but have found my positions to be almost identical to orthedox protestant doctrine. Which is widely accepted.

The opinions and arguments presented in your posts don't appear to bear that out.

Maybe if you lived in Israel 2500 years ago.

Maybe, 2500 years ago, they knew less about human physiology and psychology than we do now.

If you really want to get countered keep on the slavery issue. I just finished a study on biblical slavery and your claims were quite destroyed.

Yes, and I'd be willing to bet in the same way that the whole ban on homosexual behavior can be quite destroyed.

Either way your not getting near either. I kid, I kid.

8<P

You are talking to someone who has jumped out of a plane at 15,000 feet, flown at 380 knots at 10 feet in a plane the size of a kite, and sank a boat I was on at the time. I live outside a comfort zone. Seriously a comfort zone has no application for me unless you consider high reliablity for what I wager my soul on as such. I even had a satanist send me a book he wrote for the love. I also spealise in military history. There is nothing comfortzoneish about me.

Hmmm. I last flew at 200 kts at 2500 agl. Nonetheless, you did state that you were uncomfortable with some of the exegesis.

Then why is it a very well known fact that as the education level increases so does the probability that the person is a conservative.

funny... I've heard just the opposite.

So far you have dismissed the standards used by the Church fathers that have endured under withering scrutiny.

No, I simply said that the text was not available for them to consider.

You have dismissed the Blue Letter Bible

Not scholarly enough.

You have dismissed WIKI

As a reliable source of scholarly information.

And you say my standards of exegesis are incorrect.

Well, you do advocate the above two items. "By their fruit ye shall know them..."

BTW: What in the h.e. double toothpicks were you flying 380 kts at 10 ft???

 

[1robin]

I see what you're saying, and on one hand I sort of agree. But I think we have to be very careful at separating out "what God says" from "what others tell us God says." The biblical texts clearly fall into the latter category, unless you believe the bible fell out of the sky in King James English. Just "because the bible says its authoritative" is circular logic, and doesn't work. The bible has authority because we believe it to have authority. And yet, even with that imbued authority, the bible is neither infallible, nor the exact, direct words of God.

I never claimed infallability. I said approx 95% accurate with the original revelations which are believed to be from God. Since prophecy and scientific claims made in the bible have no other source it is not too much of a stretch. If you can just dismiss anything you find troublesome with the wave of the arbitrary we don't know it's from God tool then what use is the bible? Since the bible to my knowledge which far exceeds the average has never made a false claim in the thousands of examples I have checked (that are outside of known textual issues, the 5%) i have great confidence in the rest. Even many of the spiritual claims line up exactly with my experience.

Well, that's the problem I have with your posts. It appears to me that you're saying that the canon is an "all or nothing" approach to authority. Historically, though, we know that's just not the case. The canon texts had more authority, such that it was OK to read them in church. The extra-canonical texts had less authority -- not 0 authority.

Actually the canon is used to judge other works. This is altogether proper and logical once their obvious reliablity had been established. Eyewitnesses to Christ are obviously more reliable than hear say third and fourth hand info found in most rejected works.

Yeah, but the problem is that there's no way to separate the flotsam from the good stuff. You'd still need a lot of published materials to check against, so why bother?

Yes there is in most cases. For one it is editable by people who fidn faults. This does not have much impact on something like wiccan beliefs but with something as popular and contentions as the canon the site gets dialed in tight and scrutinized more than any peer review ever could. Many of the sources are peer reviewed articles as well as respected published works. In short it all depends on the topic.

The opinions and arguments presented in your posts don't appear to bear that out.

What is it you think I am bieased towards. We have been discussing the canon and Thomas. I do not find them things where a bias is applicable. The rules being inclusion are independant of me and so refute your argument.

Maybe, 2500 years ago, they knew less about human physiology and psychology than we do now.

That is a different subject. Since they do not apply today the reason for their inclusion in the discussion is moot.

Yes, and I'd be willing to bet in the same way that the whole ban on homosexual behavior can be quite destroyed.

I don't get the parallel.

8<P

I am pop culture stupid and only found out what IMO meant recently. What did that mean?

Hmmm. I last flew at 200 kts at 2500 agl. Nonetheless, you did state that you were uncomfortable with some of the exegesis.

Things get a little dicey below the tree line. I do not remember what the last statement is addressing.

funny... I've heard just the opposite.

Actually I looked into this and I have found statistics that say everything imaginable so I withdraw the claim.

No, I simply said that the text was not available for them to consider.

I have been reading up on old Thomas. It has more problems than a math book. If these posts shrink a little I will supply some of them. In fact I will address these issues if you respond to this by whatever means is required. That "Gospel" is a mess.

Not scholarly enough.

By what standards? It contains countless articles by respected scholars, most commentaries that exist, too shorten this I will just say it has way more respected and scrutinized scholarly input available than could possibly be used by anyone. Did you look through the works that were available for reference?

As a reliable source of scholarly information.

I will agree that not every claim is reliably addressed but most major ones are addressed and scritinized to greater detail than any single paper ever was.

Well, you do advocate the above two items. "By their fruit ye shall know them..."

So do vast numbers of scholars, theologians, and motivated amateurs.

BTW: What in the h.e. double toothpicks were you flying 380 kts at 10 ft???

I worked at the airport and this guy said his partner didn't show up and so he needed some one else to balance the plane out. (That should have scared me away but I was younger then). We went to his hanger and he pulled out a glassair about the size of a large kite with a turbo charged engine out of a 172. We took off and I asked how fast it went and he said 385kts or something. I had just gotten out of the Navy and so I countered that an F-14 could go 1500 kts. He said they do that way up high with no reference point and then proceded to dive down to an old airfield and scare the heck out of me.

 

[sojourner]

I said approx 95% accurate with the original revelations which are believed to be from God.

How do you know what those "original revelations" were, though? We don't have access to them, so we don't really know what they were -- or even if there were any. What we do know is that we have texts that had begun to be written down approx. 650 b.c.e., several of which closely parallel other, more ancient religious stories.

Since prophecy and scientific claims made in the bible have no other source it is not too much of a stretch.

No other source than what? God? What about human agency?

If you can just dismiss anything you find troublesome with the wave of the arbitrary we don't know it's from God tool then what use is the bible?

If you can just conjure up anything you find praiseworthy with the wave of the arbitrary "it must be from God" tool, then what use is the bible?

Actually the canon is used to judge other works.

No it's not. If it were actually used to judge other works, then some would be deemed as "OK." the canon has become an exclusionary cutoff line, rather than a starting point.

Eyewitnesses to Christ are obviously more reliable than hear say third and fourth hand info found in most rejected works.

That sounds real pretty, but it's unlikely that any books were written by eyewitnesses. Most info in the texts is third and fourth hand info. In fact, it's a lot more likely that Thomas is more authentic with regard to its content than John.

Yes there is in most cases. For one it is editable by people who fidn faults.

That's a drawback. Anyone can edit. How would you feel reading stuff that I had edited?

with something as popular and contentions as the canon the site gets dialed in tight and scrutinized more than any peer review ever could.

I highly doubt that.

What is it you think I am bieased towards. We have been discussing the canon and Thomas. I do not find them things where a bias is applicable.

Thank you for proving my point.

I am pop culture stupid and only found out what IMO meant recently. What did that mean?

It's a face sticking its tongue out. Look at it sideways. Here's one winking. ;<)
Here's one frowning. :-(

Things get a little dicey below the tree line.

Obstructions... crosswind components... maneuvering room in case of emergency power out... I'll grant you this: You've got cajones!

That "Gospel" is a mess.

so are the others. The problem with Thomas is that it hasn't had the luxury of being scrutinized for a very long time.

By what standards?

None of the "scholars" listed is a renowned exegetical scholar.

So do vast numbers of scholars, theologians, and motivated amateurs.

Of what ilk, and at what level of study?

I worked at the airport and this guy said his partner didn't show up and so he needed some one else to balance the plane out. (That should have scared me away but I was younger then). We went to his hanger and he pulled out a glassair about the size of a large kite with a turbo charged engine out of a 172. We took off and I asked how fast it went and he said 385kts or something. I had just gotten out of the Navy and so I countered that an F-14 could go 1500 kts. He said they do that way up high with no reference point and then proceded to dive down to an old airfield and scare the heck out of me.

The 172 came with either a Continental O-300 (175 HP) or a Lycoming O-320 (150 HP).
The GlaStar, with a lycoming O-360 (180 HP), will only push 120 kts. And that's a bigger engine than was usually in the 172. the GlasAir III is only rated at 284 kts at 18,000 with a turbo engine. At sea level at 260 kts. Sounds like the guy was telling you fish stories.
BUT... at 10 ft off the ground, 260 kts in a GlasAir would feel atrociously fast, 'cause they're so tiny.

 

[1robin]

How do you know what those "original revelations" were, though? We don't have access to them, so we don't really know what they were -- or even if there were any. What we do know is that we have texts that had begun to be written down approx. 650 b.c.e., several of which closely parallel other, more ancient religious stories.

I find the lack of knowledge of how the originals can be taken as reasonably assumed to be disquieting. I forget the label but it involves textual comparisons contained within a rich textual tradition and makes very good sence when explained by a scholar. Actually we have texts from earlier than what you state. Some fragments go back to pre 100AD and some books go back to pre 300AD.
Dating the Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I noticed one of the scholars cited at that page was Raymond Brown probably the most respected and quoted scholar that has existed in the field.

No other source than what? God? What about human agency?

Do you know humans that can accurately predict many details which were forcasted accurately the destruction of major empires long before it happened with dates and names? Human agency didn't know hydrological cycles in detail thousands of years ago. Humans did not know over 350 details about Christ before he was born.

If you can just conjure up anything you find praiseworthy with the wave of the arbitrary "it must be from God" tool, then what use is the bible?

A claim that agrees with predominant scholarship as well as the majority of millions of practicing Christians is anything but arbitrary.

No it's not. If it were actually used to judge other works, then some would be deemed as "OK." the canon has become an exclusionary cutoff line, rather than a starting point.

This is too general to be useful. The Gospel of Thomas contains claims contradictory to the bible and perfectly consistent with Gnostic claims and so is not compatable with the bible to any meaningful extent.

That sounds real pretty, but it's unlikely that any books were written by eyewitnesses. Most info in the texts is third and fourth hand info. In fact, it's a lot more likely that Thomas is more authentic with regard to its content than John.

I just had to study the gospel authors for another discussion. While people dissagree over the specific authors at times almost every single scholar I read was consistent with saying they were eyewitnesses to Christ.

That's a drawback. Anyone can edit. How would you feel reading stuff that I had edited?

There is a criteria that wiki uses that weeds out the bad and consolidates, scrutinises, and refines the good. That is why it is so respected for major issues anyway. They don't just open the door and see who walks in.

I highly doubt that.

I highly doubt you have suffecient reason to.

Thank you for proving my point.

My grammer in that statement proved the point that I can't spell. How is rejecting something that is contradictory to the bible, very likely Gnostic in origin, not an eyewitness, and no know likely author a result of bias. What is it you think I am biased towards? All the areas I might allow for a possible bias have nothing to do with this issue.

It's a face sticking its tongue out. Look at it sideways. Here's one winking. ;<)
Here's one frowning. :-(

Apparently I am not sophisticated enough for the digital age.

Obstructions... crosswind components... maneuvering room in case of emergency power out... I'll grant you this: You've got cajones!

You said it. It was scarier than just jumping out. I guess he figured if we crashed there would be no-body (literally) to sue and no-body (literally) to get sued. He had to request permission from the tower (which is shocking that they granted it) to do it as we were only a few miles from there before I made my F-14 comment which caused the ruckus.

so are the others. The problem with Thomas is that it hasn't had the luxury of being scrutinized for a very long time.

I have spent a great deal of time solving supposed contradictions or descrepencies in the Gospels with Muslims mostly. I can honestly say that I am unaware of a single unresolvable issue. With very reliable resolutions not force fit ones. In fact the more they are challenged and the more I have had to look into issues the more confidence I have felt concerning them.

None of the "scholars" listed is a renowned exegetical scholar.

Mathew Henry's works plus Raymond Brown. Names do not get much bigger.

Of what ilk, and at what level of study?

Very high ilk. Dr James White, one of my favorites suggests it's use frequently. I have also heard it referenced in William lane Craig and Dinesh Desouza debates.

The 172 came with either a Continental O-300 (175 HP) or a Lycoming O-320 (150 HP).
The GlaStar, with a lycoming O-360 (180 HP), will only push 120 kts. And that's a bigger engine than was usually in the 172. the GlasAir III is only rated at 284 kts at 18,000 with a turbo engine. At sea level at 260 kts. Sounds like the guy was telling you fish stories.
BUT... at 10 ft off the ground, 260 kts in a GlasAir would feel atrociously fast, 'cause they're so tiny.

It was not a GlaStar, maybe it was a Glasair III (rated at 335 stock) However what you said is very likely, I think I offended him by my F-14 comparison. The glass air he had was built by him personally as a kit plane. He actually had two. The engine (the 172 is from my memory it could have been a 182, or a mig 25 for all I know {joke} this was 15-17 years ago) but whatever it was, it was not standard. I think it was an arial Frankenstein. He was a mechanical engineer and changed things to suit him. The two things I can gurranty are I saw him spend several years working on it and it scared the bejesus out of me and that ain't easy. My best friend is a somewhat normal pilot and knows that guy. If you desire it maybe he can get the actual numbers. I didn't have time today but if you will reduce some of these issues we can spend some time on the actual Gospel in question.

 

[sojourner]

I find the lack of knowledge of how the originals can be taken as reasonably assumed to be disquieting.

What "originals?"

Some fragments go back to pre 100AD and some books go back to pre 300AD.

What are you talking about, specifically? The oldest biblical texts begin about 650 b.c.e "pre-100 c.e. is much, much newer than that.

Do you know humans that can accurately predict many details which were forcasted accurately the destruction of major empires long before it happened with dates and names? Human agency didn't know hydrological cycles in detail thousands of years ago. Humans did not know over 350 details about Christ before he was born.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

A claim that agrees with predominant scholarship as well as the majority of millions of practicing Christians is anything but arbitrary.

Doesn't mean that it's "from God," though.

The Gospel of Thomas contains claims contradictory to the bible

I've read Thomas. I've studied Thomas. I've taken graduate courses that treated Thomas. There's nothing in there that's blatantly "contradictory" to the bible, and a lot that corroborates the other gospels.

I just had to study the gospel authors for another discussion. While people dissagree over the specific authors at times almost every single scholar I read was consistent with saying they were eyewitnesses to Christ.

Again, I've taken graduate courses specifically in biblical history and exegetical treatment of the gospels. There is no textual reason to think that the writers were eyewitnesses, and every reason to consider that the gospels began as oral stories from early sources, but that the gospel writings were written too late to have been written by eyewitnesses.

I highly doubt you have suffecient reason to.

The conspicuous absence of any of their experts from the list of well-respected scholars is reason enough.

How is rejecting something that is contradictory to the bible, very likely Gnostic in origin, not an eyewitness, and no know likely author a result of bias.

The fact that it's not contradictory, likely not gnostic, that its sources were probably the same as those of the canonical gospels, and consistency with the authorship claims of the canonical gospels leaps to mind.

You said it. It was scarier than just jumping out. I guess he figured if we crashed there would be no-body (literally) to sue and no-body (literally) to get sued. He had to request permission from the tower (which is shocking that they granted it) to do it as we were only a few miles from there before I made my F-14 comment which caused the ruckus.

You did a low-altitude, high-speed flyby at a towered airport???

I have spent a great deal of time solving supposed contradictions or descrepencies in the Gospels with Muslims mostly. I can honestly say that I am unaware of a single unresolvable issue. With very reliable resolutions not force fit ones. In fact the more they are challenged and the more I have had to look into issues the more confidence I have felt concerning them.

You should try it with actual exegetical experts. You might have better results.

Mathew Henry's works plus Raymond Brown. Names do not get much bigger.

Matthew Henry is waaaaay too old to be any longer effective as a source. You should try people like Crossan, Kloppenborg, Rhoads, Scott, and Miller.

Very high ilk. Dr James White, one of my favorites suggests it's use frequently.

Not impressed with James White.

 

[1robin]

What "originals?"

The first draft. It is said by competent scholars that they still exist within the total textual tradition. The problem is with extra info not missing info.

What are you talking about, specifically? The oldest biblical texts begin about 650 b.c.e "pre-100 c.e. is much, much newer than that.

You are correct. Since we are discussing NT issues and I primarily defend the NT I assumed you meant AD for NT docs. Given that you are right that you said b.c.e I do not get the relevance. The old testament is very important but the NT is the primary text for this issue and that was what I meant concerning the 95%.
I do not know the percentage for the OT but imagine it is much less.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

You said humans could have produced the prophecies and scientific claims that were unknown. Or so I thought.

Doesn't mean that it's "from God," though.

I never claimed my opinion is from God. Determining whether the bible is a very different process.

I've read Thomas. I've studied Thomas. I've taken graduate courses that treated Thomas. There's nothing in there that's blatantly "contradictory" to the bible, and a lot that corroborates the other gospels.

Actually that is similar to what I have found but we can really cover it shortly. The only difference is degree. I do value your opinion even if I disagree. That is not true of everyone I debate.

Again, I've taken graduate courses specifically in biblical history and exegetical treatment of the gospels. There is no textual reason to think that the writers were eyewitnesses, and every reason to consider that the gospels began as oral stories from early sources, but that the gospel writings were written too late to have been written by eyewitnesses.

I have little formal education concerning the bible and I do take your education into account. However I have read and researched the issue suffeciently to know that your claims differ from many and respected scholars.

The conspicuous absence of any of their experts from the list of well-respected scholars is reason enough.

I do not remember what the subject was.

The fact that it's not contradictory, likely not gnostic, that its sources were probably the same as those of the canonical gospels, and consistency with the authorship claims of the canonical gospels leaps to mind.

It claims that the kingdom of God is in everyone and that Jesus hid his revelations and theyy are secret are about as opposite to the biblical narrative as it gets. It is identicle to gnostic ideas. As I said we can cover this issue soon.

You did a low-altitude, high-speed flyby at a towered airport???

No, we took off from the airport but the field we buzzed is an old private runway a doctor operated I think.

You should try it with actual exegetical experts. You might have better results.

You have no acces to whether I did or not. Most of the issues are readily apparent with little study. It isn't counter intuitive as in the calculus and physics I have studied and does not require someone (in most cases) to spoon feed it to you.

Matthew Henry is waaaaay too old to be any longer effective as a source. You should try people like Crossan, Kloppenborg, Rhoads, Scott, and Miller.

Too old does not address whether something is true or not. In fact the bible is out by that standard. Since you exhibit such little confidence in the bible what is it you use to justify your faith besides your relationship with Christ? I intend to review your scholars but there is no reason to think they are anymore correct than some that I mentioned.

Not impressed with James White.

He has personally studied more codices in person than anyone I know of. I have never found a claim he made that I ever found him incorrect on. He did beg the question once with the formidable Shabir Ali but that is it. He has had 5 degrees, 14 teaching positions, 50+ professional debates, writes for over 30 articles, and 22 publications. Not unimpressive by any standard.

 

[ShadowsAndDust]

I personally view it as a heavily flawed book that has been changed and cannot be validated.

On the other hand the Quran is even worst as it has no flow and far more contradictions from the same author.