How is the Bible the Word of God?

[outhouse]

location of childhood,

What are you even thinking? Are you just copy and pasting what you don't know???

What most historians are confident of

Historicity of the Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


there is no scholarly consensus on the authors of the other books of the New Testament, which most modern scholars acknowledge as pseudonymous autographs

1. ^ Ehrman, Bart (2011). "Forged: Writing in the Name of God - Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are", Harper One, ISBN 0062012614
2. ^ Jump up to: abMack, Burton (1996), "Who Wrote the New Testament?: The Making of the Christian Myth", Harper One, ISBN 0060655186

 

[1robin]

So, you have not provided useful evidence to support your claim then, as subjective evidence is usually only covincing to the person encountering it.

Depends on what claim I made. Your getting the evidence for one claim mixed up with the other.

My subjective claims are for my experience with being born again. I have never claimed to be able to prove that or to be able to provide an objective argument for that.

My claims that are of an objective nature were about textual integrity across the time of the extant manuscripts until today. I have provided objective evidence, virtual proof for these.

And I made claims that were a mixture of the two and provided evidence that was a mixture of the two.

I am tired of asking you to post where I did what you claim and your not doing so, so I will not do so again.

The other is asked to "take their word for it," which is an unreasonable request when debating anything. That is part of my frustration. If you had admitted that you had not provided substantive proof for your claim earlier, I wouldn't have reacted the way I did. But, your claim that history and theology is never resolved to a certainty or proof is incredibly misleading. History is not proved with absolute certainty in many respects, but its probability is based on objective evidence, not subjective experience or notions. The comparison is not fair. And, btw, you have not been claiming that the Bible is probably reliable or probably true or most likely an accurate portrayal of Jesus' words. You have used quotes from Jesus in the Bible as proof for your claims, you keep on saying that the reliability of the Bible is not in question, that the historicity should be used to prove points about the nature of God.

Again which claim?

About my experience I gave it for whatever you want to do with it. It is my duty as a Christian. I don't expect you to do anything in particular with it.

About the bible I gave you evidence that has nothing to do with taking my word for it.

I did not admit what you claim. I do however admit to claiming the exact same things this whole discussion and to provide the level of evidence that the individual claims have the burden to provide. Your getting the burden of one claim mixed up with others and calling foul and apparently I am powerless to rectify your misconception.

My position is that the spirit of Jesus' teachings in the Bible are accurate and appropriate. The specifics, historicity, and quotes almost certainly are not, at least not in their entirety. This has been shown in multiple ways, and can be read about through a simple Google search on the subject, but that isn't important in this discussion. It should be common sense that any book that has been translated so many times, was not meant to be combined as it was, many more texts left out than included, and many inconsistencies present (mainly small, but some large) must be viewed with skepticism. As such, passages should not be used as statements that prove what God's will is. It is certainly the most beneficial book I have ever read, and it has helped to shape my life, but using quotes supposedly uttered by Jesus to "prove" what Jesus wants of us is tantamount to a slap in the face. It's insulting that you keep on spewing Biblical passages at me as if I don't know them already.

There is a process by which this is determined. I cannot by any means what so ever get you to follow that procedure so I have suspended replying to this subject. I also answer to a much higher authority than a random poster in a forum and must adhere to what I believe or know to be true. It is not a rare or exclusive truth, it is the mainstream truth present in the entire span of Christian history. I have tried to end this discussion, especially tried to end the discussion of the issue you object to, but you will not let it end. You keep bringing up the issue. Don't blame the wall your butting your head against.

I know what the Bible says already, I am interested in what you think and why you think it. If you believe things about God simply because they are stated in the Bible, there is no reason to discuss this topic. But, if you would like to get into your objective reasoning for why you think the way you do about God, I would love to discuss it. I fear that you think there can't be valid objective reasons for belief apart from scripture, but I hope I am wrong.

I don't think you are, you have just railed against taking my word for even my own experience in this same above, and you will not track any academic investigation into this subject beyond step one. There is nowhere else to go. For some reason you seem to desire my approval or agreement. I cannot give it. You must either be satisfied with our inability to agree, follow the academic process to resolve our disagreement, or forever be frustrated and repeating your argument in various forms.

Since you object to my position on being born again, and I have tried to end that portion of the discussion I will suggest to the other poster who is born again to talk with you about it. I don't want to hurt your feelings but I will not change my mind.

You did make one point of inquiry that is not on that subject, has not been stymied by your not tracking the process, and one which I would not mind discussing.

I fear that you think there can't be valid objective reasons for belief apart from scripture, but I hope I am wrong

I will debate this one but it is a strange subject, it is like that saying "apart from the blood on your dress Misses Lincoln, how was the play". Apart from the primary foundations (the bible) how would I defend faith is a weird question but one I would not mind discussing. You can open.

 

[outhouse]

What makes a witness credible has not changed in thousands of years.

Except the authors were not witnesses


Nativity of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Most mainstream scholars do not see the Luke and Matthew nativity stories as historically factual.[2][3][4][5][50

1. ^ Jump up to: abThe Gospel of Matthew by Daniel J. Harrington 1991 ISBN 0-8146-5803-2 p. 47
2. ^ Jump up to: abcVermes, Géza (2006-11-02). The Nativity: History and Legend. Penguin Books Ltd. p. 64. ISBN0-14-102446-1.
3. ^ Jump up to: abcdefSanders, E. P. The historical figure of Jesus. Penguin, 1993. Sanders discusses both birth narratives in detail, contrasts them, and judges them not historical on pp. 85–88.
4. ^ Jump up to: abcdJeremy Corley New Perspectives on the Nativity Continuum International Publishing Group, 2009 p. 22.
5. ^ Marcus Borg, 'The Meaning of the Birth Stories' in Marcus Borg, N T Wright, The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions (Harper One, 1999) page 179: "I (and most mainline scholars) do not see these stories as historically factual."

Now this has two scholars you quoted. Are they now wrong because they disagree with you???????????

 

[lovemuffin]

1robin: I think your strongest arguments are about the claims that aren't really controversial. For example, I agree that Christ Myth theories are not as popular amongst historians as the view that there was at least some historical Jesus, an itinerant teacher, who aroused the ire of the authorities and was executed by the Romans. It also seems we have clarified the issue with regard to reliability of the text, so we are in agreement there.

Of the four original points that you said were agreed to by the majority of historians, the one that causes me to doubt your claim is the one that you admit is most debated, i.e that the resurrected Jesus actually (as in historically) appeared to various people, and that the tomb was found empty. These are the claims that are the hardest to substantiate in an historical way simply because of their extraordinary nature. The quotes from E.P. Sanders don't establish a consensus opinion, and his phrasing doesn't even convey that he himself believes the experiences of the disciples necessarily constitute the resurrection as an historical fact. He says he does not know what the source of those experiences was. I think the distinction he's trying to draw there is reasonable. It's reasonable to believe that the life of Jesus and its aftermath had a profound effect, given the subsequent 2k years, but that's not the same as claiming that the resurrection is an historical fact. Nor is claiming that he was famous for exorcism the same as claiming that the actual casting out of demons is a historical fact.

Let me explain my one point above again. My confidence comes from finding what the bible promised, all the data that shows each detail of the road map that got me there is just icing on the cake, not what inspires my confidence. I found what it lead to, I know the map is true, but I cannot debate from the point of view of my being born again, it is not objectively available, I must use data and academic arguments in a debate but they are not where my faith comes from, they simply add to it. This may explain why I have complete confidence in doctrines that may not have been copied with perfection.

I have no argument here. I am a Christian and that fact owes more to my own experiences than to historical arguments. But I think this gets to the point of the actual debate, which is whether or not the veracity of various biblical claims can be verified (or falsified for that matter) historically. When you say that data and academic arguments are not the source of your faith, you are more or less conceding the argument. I have no issue with this, it just seems that the various claims have been confused. People will make arguments about whether or not it is "rational" to hold to the truth of historical biblical claims, such as that Jesus was resurrected, but those are different arguments than what's been in this thread, which has been about what can be ascertained about Jesus and the beginnings of Christianity using historical methods

So I do not hold the bible to a standard of historical perfection because it was not intended to meet that criteria

I agree with this.

What makes a witness credible has not changed in thousands of years.

This seems like a dubious proposition to me, but it might be irrelevant at this point.

 

[outhouse]

E.P. Sanders don't establish a consensus opinion, and his phrasing doesn't even convey that he himself believes the experiences of the disciples necessarily constitute the resurrection as an historical fact. He says he does not know what the source of those experiences was.

Which is true.

Our best indications are that it was wide and varied early beliefs.

It is my personal opinion, that we had an evolution from a spiritual resurrection, to a physical one.

There were different groups with different thoughts. Take our first gospel Mark, he barely makes any mention of it. His original ending almost silent.

It does not make sense if it was an orthodox belief in all communities. Mark should have write a whole chapter just on the resurrection if he had thought it was a physical one.


Even Paul who reflects thoughts decades after the event as well, takes a more spiritual side, though it can be read both ways and is still debated today.

I don't think it took a body missing to originate this, it is not really a core aspect to Marks details, nor the Messianic secret in Mark.

We see what Mark was trying to do with his theology forwards and backwards.

 

[1robin]

No one is arguing this with you. All scholars agree with this.

Its how the gospels were written is where you run into trouble. Not how they were copied and translated.

What does that even mean?

So you agree we can have confidence that what we have accurately )not perfectly) reflects the originals?

You only object to how they were written, which you going to have to explain first.

 

[outhouse]

So you agree we can have confidence that what we have accurately )not perfectly) reflects the originals?

Yes. The 4 gospels have evolved very little since the time they were compiled together.


Or yes after about 150 CE they remained very close to their original form.

 

[1robin]

What are you even thinking? Are you just copy and pasting what you don't know???

No, I am copying what they said. Of all the claims they made,, which by the way I did not even agree to (I merely used them to show the ones I originally posted were among them), this is among the most simplistic. I never said they agree they know where Jesus spent his childhood, they said it, of course I have no reason to doubt it either. It cannot even be objected to unless you state an arbitrary location size, which of course you did not do.

 

[outhouse]

No, I am copying what they said. Of all the claims they made,, which by the way I did not even agree to (I merely used them to show the ones I originally posted were among them), this is among the most simplistic. I never said they agree they know where Jesus spent his childhood, they said it, of course I have no reason to doubt it either. It cannot even be objected to unless you state an arbitrary location size, which of course you did not do.

I just posted NT Wright and EP Sanders, that state the nativity stories are not historical events.

The difference between us is I have read EP Sanders and know his position. I don't have to go to a apologetic website that quote mined him.

 

[1robin]

Yes. The 4 gospels have evolved very little since the time they were compiled together.


Or yes after about 150 CE they remained very close to their original form.

You must be sitting there salivating waiting for me to post. Just kidding. However you did not explain what how they wrote them even means. What does that mean, it's half beast half man, I don't know what it is? I have previously decided not to debate you on the credentials of scholars because it seems you make them up as you wish because on convenience but I will respond to things you say that interest me. So don't confuse this effort with a general debate. You shot gunning claims from al over the place and dismissing scholars on whims when any one of them would require more than one post to respond to and you would simply dismiss those posts on other whims. But was surprised to find you agree with the textual integrity of the bible and did want to know what how they were written means. I would not even have used as early of a date as you have.

 

[lovemuffin]

Speaking of N.T. Wright, @1robin I was thinking last night that he would be potentially a good author to read if you want a theologically conservative biblical scholar whose methods are inline with modern scholarship. The only downside is his writing is voluminous. But he does a good job explaining the approach he calls "critical realism" and I think you might be interested. For example The New Testament and the People of God: Christian Origins and the Question of God

 

[1robin]

I just posted NT Wright and EP Sanders, that state the nativity stories are not historical events.

The difference between us is I have read EP Sanders and know his position. I don't have to go to a apologetic website that quote mined him.

This is why I resist interjecting comments into the middle of other discussions. It is a minefield and liable to embarrass. Apparently you did not read the original claim I made in the context of a post to another person. I gave four historical claims that the majority of NT historians agree are reliable. I did not intend or hint I was giving their general conclusions. Of course I quote mined. I only had four claims to defend. Not a book, not another's faith, not generalized positions on a whole, not even a specific person. I did way more than was necessary to support my simplistic four claims (I gave over a dozen), and what you picked was not even among them. You would make a heck of a debater if you were more disciplined. Your not tracking what I say, your in an arrogant denial mode that does not even jive coherently with what you respond to. It's really too bad, it is ruining what would be without it a good debate.

 

[1robin]

Speaking of N.T. Wright, @1robin I was thinking last night that he would be potentially a good author to read if you want a theologically conservative biblical scholar whose methods are inline with modern scholarship. The only downside is his writing is voluminous. But he does a good job explaining the approach he calls "critical realism" and I think you might be interested. For example The New Testament and the People of God: Christian Origins and the Question of God

I really cannot go by my impressions in a debate, what I like is not really a credential. I do however know N.T. Wright, Brown, etc..... are more quoted than any other authors I see credited in professional debates. Apparently he is well respected in professional circles. I have to go for now but will look at your link. Have a good one.

 

[catch22]

Agreed.

Probability is how history is defined.

If you have extraordinary claims, they flat require extraordinary evidence, of which you have none.

You do have text, written decades after the events by people who were far removed from all aspects of Galilean Aramaic life.

We have theological text with known mythology and written in rhetorical prose. We have events that contradict each other, and we have heavy plagiarisms that changed original core material.

So im sorry but we know more then you may think we do.

One of my favorite history professors said that history was alive. It's by no means some static, unchanging set of facts people tend to think it is. I agree with him, he's absolutely right.

Probability is not necessarily historical. In the case of Jesus' divinity, well, you won't hear Tabor or Ehrman proclaim the divinity of Jesus -- but they'd probably tell you Paul and the other NT writers perceived Jesus as divine. But why believe it? Well, that's always going to be a point of conjecture.

As is obvious: there's no real way to know for sure. We can verify some tidbits about the historical man who was Jesus, but the authenticity of the claims to his divinity is strictly a matter of, 'what do you believe?'

I don't blame these scholars, nor you or anyone, for questioning the divinity of Jesus. By all means, healing the sick, raising the dead, and coming back to life after being dead are not commonalities in daily life. It just doesn't happen. But as Paul says, if the resurrection of Christ is a fraud, our faith is nothing.

So, back to probability. Sure, probability is on your side. Probability does not dictate outcome. It's possible, albeit unlikely, that Jesus was exactly as He was described by the authorship of the New Testament.

 

[outhouse]

You shot gunning claims from al over the place and dismissing scholars on whims when any one of them would require more than one post to respond to and you would simply dismiss those posts on other whims.

No. I am however repeating what I have learned from multiple professors, and I do use a wide variety of scholars with credibility.

. But was surprised to find you agree with the textual integrity of the bible and did want to know what how they were written means

Yes the NT core text has changed little.

I already have an understanding of how and when they were compiled together from previous written and oral sources, as much as we can know.l

I would not even have used as early of a date as you have.

Why. They have change little since that time.

At 150 we know much of what was out there because of the criticism of Marcion, most of Luke has remained similar. Only the ending of Mark has changed, and do we really know when?

John was the last book and late first century to early second was its completion date.


Being compilations then copies of copies of copies, they have remained fairly intact, less a few glosses and language interpretations, as well as a few small changes as they were canonized.

 

[outhouse]

One of my favorite history professors said that history was alive. It's by no means some static, unchanging set of facts people tend to think it is. I agree with him, he's absolutely right.

Agreed. You remember what Dale B Martin said in the beginning of his lectures?

We can never recreate the past, those moments and history are gone forever.

We can only add pieces of the puzzle to get a glimpse of what once was.

Probability is not necessarily historical.

No, but it is all we have when we go back to such poor evidence.

Probability is not necessarily historical. In the case of Jesus' divinity, well, you won't hear Tabor or Ehrman proclaim the divinity of Jesus -- but they'd probably tell you Paul and the other NT writers perceived Jesus as divine. But why believe it?

Because these people from this time period lived mythology. They literally though little people ran around inside you, also a quote from Dale. They also thought gods and demons controlled your conscious thought.

Reality is the living Emperor was considered "son of god" and divine, and we know the gospel authors were competing against him for Proselytes, and wrote many similarities to try and win over his followers.

As is obvious: there's no real way to know for sure. We can verify some tidbits about the historical man who was Jesus, but the authenticity of the claims to his divinity is strictly a matter of, 'what do you believe?'

It is a matter of what educated guess you want to run with. But in the end, there is less known then more, about his Galilean life.

Generally, all we really know is what people knew about him after he died, by hearsay of people who found his actions at Passover important enough to spread the teachings orally for decades before we even get a few groups that started to record the later theology that had developed.

I don't blame these scholars, nor you or anyone, for questioning the divinity of Jesus. By all means, healing the sick, raising the dead, and coming back to life after being dead are not commonalities in daily life. It just doesn't happen. But as Paul says, if the resurrection of Christ is a fraud, our faith is nothing.

I have a problem with this. Your faith should remain intact no matter what historical aspect is known or not known. His remote followers teachings even if remotely rooted in history, are still important teachings and can be in moderation, a good code to live by.


Remember there is a reason it is a faith based religion. Lack of credible evidence or plausibility doesn't change the core teachings of these later authors. It is still Christianity and has value.

It's possible, albeit unlikely, that Jesus was exactly as He was described by the authorship of the New Testament.

This is really not debated, nor should it be. Its very hard to flesh out a good historical Jesus due to the limited poor evidence we were left with.

They are valuable theology, not historical text in any sense. And need to be looked at first as theology, the should never be looked at as historical pieces.


Now if you would like the best and most current state of the historical Jesus research, this link below is as good as it gets. Its hard to understand fully because there is so much information that needs to be digested, I recommend saving this link.

Sample Chapter for Levine, A., Allison, D., Jr., Crossan, J.D., eds.: The Historical Jesus in Context.

 

[outhouse]

I really cannot go by my impressions in a debate, what I like is not really a credential. I do however know N.T. Wright, Brown, etc..... are more quoted than any other authors I see credited in professional debates. Apparently he is well respected in professional circles. I have to go for now but will look at your link. Have a good one.

They are not just good scholars, they are great scholars. many people base their studies from them. Each has their own areas of expertise.

No scholar alone has been really able to recreate the past, there is just to much to know for one person in one lifetime. I like EP Sanders because if you get a chance to read his work, he describes all the points of view from right to left, then gives his two cents. Doesn't make him right, but its good that he exposes different opinions.

You will always have personal opinions on this subject. When you do enough study on this, your opinion can evolve.

Sample Chapter for Levine, A., Allison, D., Jr., Crossan, J.D., eds.: The Historical Jesus in Context.


A great read if you get the time. I cannot comprehend it all yet. Im getting closer though, but could not explain half of it.

 

[1robin]

No. I am however repeating what I have learned from multiple professors, and I do use a wide variety of scholars with credibility.

And so am I, but your dismissing scholars a fast as I can post them and without sufficient justification, your doing this makes a debate pointless. I can claim your scholar was biased, not an expert in a field I decide is the only field I would allow, too tall, too ugly, whatever.......... but I chose to counteract their claims. You on the other hand deny the best minds in the business and don't bother with their claims. That does not allow for debate.

For example in the last go around you did not read or include the context of my original four claims, you decided that because a scholar had a different general view of the NT over all than I could not use him to back up my claim (despite him being only one of thousands), and picked on a claim that just happened to be in the evidence I gave and was not part of the original four I gave the post to demonstrate. I don't know what the case actually is but you seem to emotionally resent my position and are throwing anything you can find whether relevant or not, justified or not, and then including counter claims that have no relevance to my original claim. That makes for a truly unpleasant debate. As I said that is to bad because if you were more focused, took more time, and had better justifications you would make a very challenging debate which is the reason I am here.

Yes the NT core text has changed little.

I already have an understanding of how and when they were compiled together from previous written and oral sources, as much as we can know.l

Yes, I think we have agreed the textual transmission is reliable, what I can get it is what your objecting to. You have said you object to how they were written, I don't even know what that means and I cannot seem to get you to define it.

Why. They have change little since that time.

Because we do not have full manuscripts from that date. I usually claim we can 95% accuracy between extant manuscripts from about the 4th century until today, we do have everything necessary to have confidence that those early manuscripts reflect the original accuracy butt cannot make a percentage claims that early on. IOW I divide biblical textual history into two periods. The extant manuscripts until today and we can have virtual certainty how accurate they are, and from the extant texts back to the original which we can have great confidence in but no hard numbers. I usually give the dividing line as mid 4th century but you chose 150AD.

At 150 we know much of what was out there because of the criticism of Marcion, most of Luke has remained similar. Only the ending of Mark has changed, and do we really know when?

If we have no majority completed texts of that date I don't think a criticism can substitute. You may be referring to OT manuscripts which do date back early than my time frames. I used the word bible but I meant NT. Besides fragments like P52, P104, P4, P75, etc...... the earliest prominent sources like the Greek Septuagint come from the 4th century.

John was the last book and late first century to early second was its completion date.

I can't believe I am on the other side of this argument. WE do not have John or any other originals from this date. Hard textual numbers end with the oldest significant extant manuscripts, everything between original and the oldest existing sources is educated guessing, very educated but still guessing.

Being compilations then copies of copies of copies, they have remained fairly intact, less a few glosses and language interpretations, as well as a few small changes as they were canonized.

That would be true or any particular manuscript but there are 400,000 textual errors known in the NT tradition alone. After sifting through them for significance, you only wind up with about one meaningful error every three pages.

Anyway since our conclusions are similar even if our particulars differ a bit lets get back to where we disagree. You said despite textual accuracy you have a problem with the Gospels because of the way they were written, I don't know what that means. For the 4th time of asking what are you referring to.

 

[1robin]

They are not just good scholars, they are great scholars. many people base their studies from them. Each has their own areas of expertise.

I agree, Wright, Bruce, Brown, Geisler, Plantinga, White, etc......... they are all great scholars. I used several of them.

No scholar alone has been really able to recreate the past, there is just to much to know for one person in one lifetime. I like EP Sanders because if you get a chance to read his work, he describes all the points of view from right to left, then gives his two cents. Doesn't make him right, but its good that he exposes different opinions.

Most of my experience comes from an obsession with professional debate. I would rather watch them than the latest Holly wood feature. I have watched hundreds and hundreds of hours. I used to average at least ten hours a week and have done so for over a decade. I spent all my money and youth in engineering classes. If I could go back to school I would take philosophy and theology courses but I can't. The next best thing is watching the best around go at it, it is the most efficient method of study possible. I literally get the benefit of their Phds without the effort. They know who the best sources are and over time I am exposed to dozens of careers worth of study. I also take the names like Brown and Wright given most often and read them on my own, I even get the transcripts and read through them over and over. I have en entire library of theistic debate and philosophy works. I prefer debate to preaching, I want both sides. If I don't die young I expect to cover most of the great works on theology.

You will always have personal opinions on this subject. When you do enough study on this, your opinion can evolve.

Sample Chapter for Levine, A., Allison, D., Jr., Crossan, J.D., eds.: The Historical Jesus in Context.

My opinions have evolved over decades of study. I started out in my teens completely hostile to Christianity, I eventually moved to the center, after being born again I swung way too far too the opposite side. Now I have a very informed conservative view of the bible. I never was indifferent to arguments about faith, my only regret is studying math and physics formally instead of theology. I do not enjoy working in a lab and would much prefer to be in a college think tank concerning theology or philosophy. Live and learn I guess. However I have an obsession with theological debate. I am currently reading four books on it.

You keep suggesting how knowledgeable you are. There is an old saying that those who know do not say and those who say do not know, despite that what exactly are your credentials?

A great read if you get the time. I cannot comprehend it all yet. Im getting closer though, but could not explain half of it.

I am currently reading four large works:

1. Debating Theism: Compiled by Sweis, Moreland, and Meister, but include 50-100 authors.
2. The science of God: By the physicist Schroeder.
3. A reasonable response. By WLC.
4. Can man live without God: Ravi Zacharias.

and I just finished Chesterton's Orthodoxy.

So I have my hands full but you may post the core claims of anyone you wish.

 

[outhouse]

Most of my experience comes from an obsession with professional debate

And it is obvious.


You need to take a historical class on this at a university. Study the NT at Yale using the video class from the link I provided you, its very informative and will give you a foundation to work from. YOU can take in your spare time.

But what I learned about Paul at Harvard, was the eye opener. I learned more my first week then the 5 years I have spent here. It is also free through EdX. If you want a link to the class I will provide one.


YOU need seat time in front of a professor, if you want to debate this.