• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How is the Bible the Word of God?

1robin

Christian/Baptist
I do believe on another related post you used the word "stupid", but your saying "...the most confusing, irrational, and contradictory faith I have ever studied" is pretty much saying the same thing. If you link me to that quote, let me peruse the other comments you made about Hinduism since there simply was a conglomerate of posts and not just one or two. If my memory is correct, I even stated that you doubled-down on your insults of that faith. So, I'd appreciate you linking me to your quote.
Yep, rather lose the war than admit to the mistake I guess. I found all my posts where I used the word stupid. 12 out of my 11,000. None, zero, nada were about a poster or their faith. The closest I got was to say using social Darwinism for a basis of law was stupid. And NO none of those words are equivalent to stupid. They are all academic conclusions free of malice. I am already violating my own decision to discontinue this absurd discussion. If you want to overly sensitive about an illusory issue then have at it. I have wasted all the time and then some on it that I intend to. Please switch back to a non-personal topic because I cannot continue this one.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Yep, rather lose the war than admit to the mistake I guess. I found all my posts where I used the word stupid. 12 out of my 11,000. None, zero, nada were about a poster or their faith. The closest I got was to say using social Darwinism for a basis of law was stupid. And NO none of those words are equivalent to stupid. They are all academic conclusions free of malice. I am already violating my own decision to discontinue this absurd discussion. If you want to overly sensitive about an illusory issue then have at it. I have wasted all the time and then some on it that I intend to. Please switch back to a non-personal topic because I cannot continue this one.
Again, could you please supply the link?
 

outhouse

Atheistically
we have vastly more than enough academic justification for believing we have Christ's core messages to us

You don't have Jesus message.

You have messages from Hellenist far removed from jesus actual life, who found importance in the growing theology and martyrdom after his death.

The NT is a product of the Diaspora and the Hellenist in it who found importance in this theology.

This is not the 100% Jewish theology of the Galilean.



when it conflicts with a mountain of scholarship.

Im sorry but credible scholarships point to what I have stated.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Many would view this as error.
Those most trained to know do not, even the bible's most famous living critic does not. Here is what Ehrman says about this:

Most of these differences are completely immaterial and insignificant; in fact most of

the changes found in our early Christian manuscripts have nothing to do with

theology or ideology
. Far and away the most changes are the result of mistakes, pure and

simple—

slips of the pen, accidental omissions, inadvertent additions, misspelled words, blunders

of one sort or another when scribes made intentional changes, sometimes their motives

were as pure as the driven snow. And so we must rest content knowing that getting back

to the earliest attainable version is the best we can do, whether or not we have reached

back to the “original” text. This oldest form of the text is no doubt closely (very closely)

related to what the author originally wrote
, and so it is the basis for our interpretation of

his teaching.

The gentleman that I’m quoting is Bart Ehrman in Misquoting Jesus. [audience laughter]


There is no credible evidence to date for the supernatural.

That is why it is called the supernatural. It has NO evidence in support.
Look I can only disprove one of your mere declarations completely devoid of evidence or even an explanation at a time. You first picked on our ability to have confidence that we have Christ's teachings. It will take me days just to present a fraction of the evidence for that one claims being absurd. That is enough for now. And NO that is not why the supernatural is called the supernatural. Not even close. It is called the supernatural because they are events that nature does not account for. I can have juts as much evidence for a miracle in my life (and the hundreds of millions of claims to miracles can have just as much evidence in those lives) as I can for any natural event. However one incorrect claim at a time. First the textual veracity on the NT. I will keep you busy for days chasing your tail and contradicting scholarship on that one alone.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
This is almost too absurd to respond to.

No all credible scholarships state this.

Your the one who seems to be taking the absurd road here.

Start to supply credible sources with me, because biased opinion wont cut it ere.

. You can't possibly know this even if it was true and your mere declaration contradicts the opinion of histories greatest scholars on testimony and evidence.

No.

We know this with a high degree of certainty.

Gospel of Mark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A persistent tradition which begins in the early 2nd century with bishop Papias (c.AD 125) ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist, a companion and interpreter of the apostle Peter, but most modern scholars do not accept Papias' claim

Gospel of Matthew - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Gospel of Matthew is anonymous:

but nowhere does the author claim to have been an eyewitness to events

Gospel of Luke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The author is not named in either volume

but "a critical consensus emphasizes the countless contradictions between the account in Acts and the authentic Pauline letters.

The eclipse of the traditional attribution to Luke the companion of Paul has meant that an early date for the gospel is now rarely put forward
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
You don't have Jesus message.

You have messages from Hellenist far removed from jesus actual life, who found importance in the growing theology and martyrdom after his death.

The NT is a product of the Diaspora and the Hellenist in it who found importance in this theology.

This is not the 100% Jewish theology of the Galilean.





Im sorry but credible scholarships point to what I have stated.
Look, I recall you seldom give evidence for anything you claim. You merely declare you opinions to be fact. If you actually want to get into the evidence behind your declarations I have opened the ball concerning textual validity in a previous post. Your going to have your hands full with it alone for now. So use that post to attempt to supply any evidence you think you have and please stop trying to post reality into existence.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
It is called the supernatural because they are events that nature does not account for

is that which is not subject to the laws of physics or, more figuratively, that which is said to exist above and beyond nature.

Which translates to no credible evidence.

It also translates to imagination, because nature exist in reality, so many are considered to be imagining outside reality.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
I recall you seldom give evidence for anything you claim

You recall wrong. I can back every position with credible sources.

You can run if you want, knowing you have no credible sources. But lets just call this what it is, not what you want it to be.


If I do not back something in every post, its because I have posted the definition and conclusions many times before.

You don't have the education or knowledge on he historical side here, if you did, you could provide credible sources. I think you know and are educated on the dogma and theology quite well though.

BUT your crossing the lines into the historical side with many of your claims. When you do, you need credible sources.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
False

provide credible sources.

your opinion doesn't cut it.
Fine, but your biting off more than you can chew at this pace. First up for your denial is perhaps the greatest expert on testimony and evidence in human history (at least among the top handful).


Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853) was the famous Royall Professor of Law at Harvard University, and succeeded Justice Joseph Story as the Dane Professor of Law in the same university, upon Story's death in 1846.

H. W. H Knott says of this great authority in jurisprudence: "To the efforts of Story and Greenleaf is to be ascribed the rise of the Harvard Law School to its eminent position among the legal schools of the United States."

Greenleaf produced a famous work entitled A Treatise on the Law of Evidence which "is still considered the greatest single authority on evidence in the entire literature of legal procedure."

In 1846, while still Professor of Law at Harvard, Greenleaf wrote a volume entitled An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice. In his classic work the author examines the value of the testimony of the apostles to the resurrection of Christ. The following are this brilliant jurist's critical observations:

The great truths which the apostles declared, were, that Christ had risen from the dead, and that only through repentance from sin, and faith in Him, could men hope for salvation. This doctrine they asserted with one voice, everywhere, not only under the greatest discouragements, but in the face of the most appalling errors that can be represented to the mind of man. Their master had recently perished as a malefactor, by the sentence of a public tribunal. His religion sought to overthrow the religions of the whole world. The laws of every country were against the teachings of His disciples. The interests and passions of all the rulers and great men in the world were against them. The fashion of the world was against them. Propagating this new faith, even in the most inoffensive and peaceful manner, they could expect nothing but contempt, opposition, revilings, bitter persecutions, stripes, imprisonments, torments, and cruel deaths. Yet this faith they zealously did propagate; and all these miseries they endured undismayed, nay, rejoicing. As one after another was put to a miserable death, the survivors only prosecuted their work with increased vigor and resolution. The annals of military warfare afford scarcely an example of the like heroic constancy, patience, and unblenching courage. They had every possible motive to review carefully the grounds of their faith, and the evidences of the great facts and truths which they asserted; and these motives were pressed upon their attention with the most melancholy and terrific frequency. It was therefore impossible that they could have persisted in affirming the truths they have narrated, had not Jesus actually risen from the dead, and had they not known this fact as certainly as they knew any other fact. If it were morally possible for them to have been deceived in this matter, every human motive operated to lead them to discover and avow their error. To have persisted in so gross a falsehood, after it was known to them, was not only to encounter, for life, all the evils which man could inflict, from without, but to endure also the pangs of inward and conscious guilt; with no hope of future peace, no testimony of a good conscience, no expectation of honor or esteem among men, no hope of happiness in this life, or in the world to come.

"Such conduct in the apostles would moreover have been utterly irreconcilable with the fact that they possessed the ordinary constitution of our common nature. Yet their lives do show them to have been men like all others of our race; swayed by the same motives, animated by the same hopes, affected by the same joys, subdued by the same sorrows, agitated by the same fears, and subject to the same passions, temptations, and infirmities, as ourselves. And their writings show them to have been men of vigorous understandings. If then their testimony was not true, there was no possible motive for its fabrication."

Testimony of the Evangelists by Simon Greenleaf
The link is to the exhaustive and famous work that my quote is from. BTW your going to need a lot more than mere denial to have any effect on claims by a scholar of his qualifications.




You cannot disprove a word I have stated.
Historical and theological claims are never resolved to a certainty but I can show the vast weight of evidence is against your un-provable and so far unjustifiable opinions.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
Fine, but your biting off more than you can chew at this pace

LOL

First up for your denial is perhaps the greatest expert on testimony and evidence in human history (at least among the top handful).

Ridiculous.


Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853)

Was not a historian, nor a biblical scholar.

His work has been refuted for hundreds of years

by a scholar of his qualifications.

He was not a scholar.

Simon Greenleaf - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


And had no historical or biblical education what so ever.

I have a much higher degree of education then he does.





BTW your going to need a lot more than mere denial to have any effect on claims by a scholar of his qualifications.

Testimony of the Evangelists - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

is an 1846 Christian apologetic work

Greenleaf submits as eyewitness testimony is technically hearsay


the criteria for the "ancient documents rule" is not met by the gospel documents and that the force of Greenleaf's argument is thereby undermined.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
No all credible scholarships state this.
That is completely wrong unless your the sole member of the board of credibility. If I show this wrong will you concede the error?



No.

We know this with a high degree of certainty.

Gospel of Mark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A persistent tradition which begins in the early 2nd century with bishop Papias (c.AD 125) ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist, a companion and interpreter of the apostle Peter, but most modern scholars do not accept Papias' claim

Gospel of Matthew - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Gospel of Matthew is anonymous:

but nowhere does the author claim to have been an eyewitness to events

Gospel of Luke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The author is not named in either volume

but "a critical consensus emphasizes the countless contradictions between the account in Acts and the authentic Pauline letters.

The eclipse of the traditional attribution to Luke the companion of Paul has meant that an early date for the gospel is now rarely put forward
Wikipedia, for pity's sake.

The NIV bible alone had over 100 biblical textual scholars that worked upon it's creation. Their consensus view was that all the traditional authors were genuine, the only possible exception was the book of Hebrews and it coincidentally is the most textually accurate of all NT books.

Here is another source (probably the most widely respected online biblical source in existence:
  • Narratives:
    • The gospel according to Matthew was written by Matthew the tax collector.
    • The gospel according to Mark was written by John-Mark.
    • The gospel according to Luke was written by Luke the Physician.
    • The gospel according to John was written by John the disciple that Jesus loved.
    • The Acts of the Apostles was written by Luke the Physician.
  • Epistles (or letters):
    • The Pauline Epistles are those written by Paul (Saul) of Tarsus:
      Romans
      1 Corinthians
      2 Corinthians
      Galatians
      Ephesians
      Philippians
      Colossians
      1 Thessalonians
      2 Thessalonians
      1 Timothy
      2 Timothy
      Titus
      Philemon
    • The Peterine Epistles are those written by Peter of the Twelve:
      1 Peter
      2 Peter
    • The Johanine Epistles are those written by John, the disciple that Jesus loved:
      1 John
      2 John
      3 John
    • And though sharing in three literary traditions — apocalyptic, prophetic, and epistolary — listing John's Apocalypse (also called Revelation) as an epistle will suit our purposes here. This was written by the same John as above.
    • The book of James was written most likely by James the brother of Jesus.
    • The book of Jude was written by Jude the brother of James.
    • The epistle of Hebrews is written anonymously. Some people ascribe it to the Apostle Paul while others prefer Apollos. Most scholars lean toward someone other than Paul (simply because the grammar and use of certain key Pauline terms is markedly different from the whole body of his identified epistolary work). In the end, God didn't see the book's authorship as important to us (if He had, He would have identified the man He used in writing Hebrews), so any guess as to the identity of the author is mere speculation and should have no bearing upon our interpretation of the passages found within.
Study Resources ::

Another is N.T. Wright probably the greatest modem Biblical expert on the textual veracity of the NT and maybe the greatest expert on Paul in human history. He credits all but Hebrews with traditional authorship.

Probably the next best is Raymond Brown who does so as well.

Another is Dr. James White who has probably handled more extant manuscripts than anyone living. He also grants the traditional authors.

But probably the best source possible is the writing of the earliest Church fathers. Not only were they in the best possible position to know but their writing can be used to reconstruct 95% of the NT even if no bible existed. They had access to sources no one today has.

"Again, the oldest and probably most significant testimony comes from Papias, who in about A.D. 125 specifically affirmed that Mark had carefully and accurately recorded Peter’s eyewitness observations. In fact he said Mark 'made no mistake' and did not include 'any false statement.' And Papias said Matthew had preserved the teachings of Jesus as well. Then Irenaeus, writing about A.D. 180 confirmed the traditional authorship."
Questions on Tradition and Protestant Evangelical Apologists

You can of course find those who will contest anything and everything in the bible, but none of them will be as well respected or qualified as those who agree with me.

Not one single alternate claim of authorship was made by anyone of the period the NT was written, not even in single claim of "I was there and this or that did not happen" exists from the period concerning events thousands were aware of.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Sorry Metis, this has run it's course. This is starting to look like antagonism.
Gee, whatta surprise you won't link me. Sorry 1robin, but I do think your "colors" are vividly showing through.

BTW, you think questioning whether another person is "Christian" enough isn't a form of "antagonism"? Can dish it out but can't take it?

I've have enough of your pathetic judgementalism to last a lifetime.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
Their consensus view was that all the traditional authors were genuine

False

I have provided a credible source.



Neither of these are credible sources.

They are both biased apologetic websites that carry ZERO credibility.

But probably the best source possible is the writing of the earliest Church fathers.

False again.


They witnessed nothing, and were far removed from anything historical.


Todays scholars have more knowledge then these people ever did


I have already supplied a credible sources stating Papias was in error

most modern scholars do not accept Papias' claim


What part of most modern scholars do you not understand?
 

outhouse

Atheistically
You have listed 4 apologist scholars, that is 4 out of thousands of scholars.

Your minority list proves nothing, nor does it substantiate your claims.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
You also need to provide credible sources why eyewitnesses if you claim Luke and Matthew are, would they would need to copy Mark
 

outhouse

Atheistically
Wikipedia, for pity's sake.

You do not possess the education to talk down to the credibility of an encyclopedia.

Do you possess any historical education? or taken any university classes on the NT or any biblical aspect?


OR are you just free wheeling your apologetic unsubstantiated opinion?
 
Top