The Chain of Infallibility

[Sleeppy]

Where is your Proof?

Of what?

 

[buddhist]

Of what?

Of your "Son of Man" and the "One who is good"?

 

[jonathan180iq]

I can perhaps agree with some of your statement, but how am I to know what a "follower of Christ" is and should be, that is, "a Christian", without a Bible I can read and trust?

You can't. The Bible doesn't change that.
The Bible only validates what your interpretation of a book compiled in 367CE asserts about Christians.

It's a very flawed system.

 

[Sleeppy]

Of your "Son of Man" and the "One who is good"?

The Son of Man, in this case refers to mankind. Self-evident.

The One, refers to the Creator, who created of Himself, the heavens and the Earth, i.e. the Universe. You might call Him that first singularity, or what caused the expansion thereof (as perceived within the bounds of space-time).

The proof of His goodness is evident in the Son of Man's evolution, foremost mentally, and further in physical domination over the Earth- paired with the continuing evolution of empathy, and discoveries of mutual benefit (or consequence) and cohesiveness within the Earth's ecosystem.

 

[buddhist]

The One, refers to the Creator, who created of Himself, the heavens and the Earth, i.e. the Universe. You might call Him that first singularity, or what caused the expansion thereof (as perceived within the bounds of space-time).

The proof of His goodness is evident in the Son of Man's evolution, foremost mentally, and further in physical domination over the Earth...

None of this is proof for "Him" or his (alleged) existence.

 

[Sleeppy]

None of this is proof for "Him" or his (alleged) existence.

Depending on who you are, proofs will not suffice. Rather, I'm identifying what is proven as God.

 

[buddhist]

Depending on who you are, proofs will not suffice. Rather, I'm identifying what is proven as God.

I don't see proofs for your idea of "God".

 

[George-ananda]

For followers of revealed, faith-based religions (on the world stage, this generally refers to the Abrahamic religions) how do you handle the issue of infallibility?

Do you consider Christianity to be a revealed religion? Islam perhaps, but I have a problem seeing how Christianity counts as a revealed religion.

 

[buddhist]

Do you consider Christianity to be a revealed religion? Islam perhaps, but I have a problem seeing how Christianity counts as a revealed religion.

It's message is supposedly revealed by a god?

 

[BilliardsBall]

I am agnostic on history, as I have not known it for myself, even my own birth.

And therefore my point about knowledge and gnosis. Do you exist? I believe I exist, therefore I’m not an agnostic on having been born.

In other words, how do you know what you (believe you) know? I accept testimony if I feel the testifiers are trustworthy:

1. As mentioned, the inescapable conclusion of history is that the Bible fulfills specific, literal prophecy—showing God’s prescience.
   
   
2. One dozen NT writers all attest to the same facts. I find their comments—all dozen—to be free of hyperbole, their lives to be clean and their facts consistent. I would not need one dozen witnesses but less than one dozen to make conclusions as a juror. I feel compelled to remind you that a juror must make a decision but must NOT have been an eyewitness to the alleged events.
   

I have no personal knowledge of an alleged Jewish people or of the alleged Kingdom of Israel of 2500 years ago, nor do I know if they are the same people today or if the alleged Kingdom of Israel is one and the same as the State of Israel today. I have no personal knowledge of Jesus, of his alleged messiaship, nor of the writing of the New Testament or the Hebrew Scriptures.

See above. We can find thousands of scholars who agree the Earth revolves around the Sun, and thousands of scholars who agree that the Hebrew scriptures date to before the times of the NT, let alone modern Israel. In fact, you can find living people who can testify to being present at the birth of modern Israel in 1948 AND that they read the Hebrew scriptures in their youth long before 1948.

On the other hand, equivalent things matter greatly in Christianity and other faith-systems, because you must have blind faith in the right things, the right stories, the right Person, etc.)

I disagree. Blind faith has no supporting facts or evidence. I’ve cited some of my supporting facts above. I have a reasonable faith in a reasonable God, who specifically asks us in the scriptures to reason with Him!

 

[BilliardsBall]

You can't. The Bible doesn't change that.
The Bible only validates what your interpretation of a book compiled in 367CE asserts about Christians.

It's a very flawed system.

I'm sorry but I'm unsure I understand your point.

As argued elsewhere in this thread, I have a Bible, which professes to be the revealed details about Christ. The word Christian literally means "follower of Christ". Someone who claims to be a Christian without reading the Bible to follow Christ is just making stuff up, unless they have divine personal revelation (which revelation I would doubt unless it aligned with the Bible regardless).

Also, the Bible was most definitely not compiled almost four centuries after Christ. The councils that met affirmed what were already considered apocrypha. The Christian councils that met also agreed, book for book, with the Jewish people. That's why both Bibles have the same 39 OT books.

 

[buddhist]

And therefore my point about knowledge and gnosis. Do you exist? I believe I exist, therefore I’m not an agnostic on having been born.

I am agnostic as to the circumstances regarding my birth, not to my current existence.

In other words, how do you know what you (believe you) know? I accept testimony if I feel the testifiers are trustworthy:

1. As mentioned, the inescapable conclusion of history is that the Bible fulfills specific, literal prophecy—showing God’s prescience.
   
2. One dozen NT writers all attest to the same facts. I find their comments—all dozen—to be free of hyperbole, their lives to be clean and their facts consistent. I would not need one dozen witnesses but less than one dozen to make conclusions as a juror. I feel compelled to remind you that a juror must make a decision but must NOT have been an eyewitness to the alleged events.

1. History concludes nothing; I have no personal knowledge of the circumstances of the various alleged prophecies, nor of the circumstances of the various alleged fulfillments. 2. Where you see a dozen NT writers, I see the possibility of one writer who manufactured the whole of the Bible. If we take any other book - let's say, a Harry Potter book - are there dozens of witnesses (characters) which testify to the magical feats of Harry Potter, or is there one writer (the author)?

See above. We can find thousands of scholars who agree the Earth revolves around the Sun, and thousands of scholars who agree that the Hebrew scriptures date to before the times of the NT, let alone modern Israel. In fact, you can find living people who can testify to being present at the birth of modern Israel in 1948 AND that they read the Hebrew scriptures in their youth long before 1948.

My point is, I have no personal knowledge of any of the above.

I disagree. Blind faith has no supporting facts or evidence. I’ve cited some of my supporting facts above. I have a reasonable faith in a reasonable God, who specifically asks us in the scriptures to reason with Him!

Evidence is not proof.

Otherwise, using your argument, why not have a reasonable faith in the record of the Buddhist Pali canon in which the record of 500 fully enlightened arahants testify to the superiority of the Lord Buddha over the delusional gods?

 

[Shiranui117]

YOU are the measuring stick, start by reading the Bible. For example, I find that reading the Bible, it is plain and clear that Jesus died for human sin, then rose from the dead. There are 14,000 denominations and groups in Christianity. Quick, name all the ones that say Jesus never rose from the dead! None of them because they read the scriptures.

Let me give you an analogy. You go to a Star Trek conference where a panel debates the meaning and symbolism of original series episodes starring Shatner and Nimoy. The scholars disagree and you are unsure what to think until one panel member reveals he's never watched a Star Trek episode or film or read a Star Trek novel or nonfiction book, and is in the wrong panel by accident.

I read the Bible so I can understand what church X believes. Millions of people in church X, Y and Z don't read the Bible, and believe what they're told, not what they've read and studied.

This isn't an answer, though. A Jehovah's Witness, a Oneness Pentecostal, a Mormon and a Catholic can all read the Bible and come away with EXTREMELY different ideas about Who Jesus is and Who God is--is Jesus both God and man, or is He just human, or is He just God? Is God the Father only, is He one God in three Persons, or one Person with three modes, or three separate Gods who work together?

Likewise, a Calvinist, a Lutheran, a Catholic and an Orthodox Christian all would read the Bible and come away with different ideas about how we are saved--does God predetermine whether we are saved, save us without our being involved, or save us with our cooperation?

You make the assumption that 13,999 denominations have not read the Bible, but one has. Or, you make the assumption that 14,000 denominations have all read the Bible, and that they agree on all the important stuff. But the fact is, we have 14,000 denominations because they all disagree with each other on one or multiple levels, often disagreeing about who God even is and what it even means for us to be saved.

My question was, how can we objectively determine who is right or wrong? Clearly isolated individuals cannot be the measuring stick, because whereas I might believe that God is Trinity, that Jesus is both God and Man, and that we are saved by cooperating with God's grace, the guy sitting next to me may say that Jesus was human alone, that God the Father is one Person and one God, and say that we play absolutely no part in our salvation that that whether we are saved or not was determined before time ever began. We both read the Bible and got our conclusions from there. How can we settle the important questions of Who God is and how we are saved? Agreeing to disagree is not an option. Christians are meant to have one faith, not 14,000 faiths. There must be an objective outside measure of determining how the Bible is supposed to be read and understood, otherwise Christianity is not the well-ordered Body of Christ, but an anarchic hodgepodge of bacteria running around without regard for anyone else.

 

[Katzpur]

This isn't an answer, though. A Jehovah's Witness, a Oneness Pentecostal, a Mormon and a Catholic can all read the Bible and come away with EXTREMELY different ideas about Who Jesus is and Who God is--is Jesus both God and man, or is He just human, or is He just God? Is God the Father only, is He one God in three Persons, or one Person with three modes, or three separate Gods who work together?

Likewise, a Calvinist, a Lutheran, a Catholic and an Orthodox Christian all would read the Bible and come away with different ideas about how we are saved--does God predetermine whether we are saved, save us without our being involved, or save us with our cooperation?

You make the assumption that 13,999 denominations have not read the Bible, but one has. Or, you make the assumption that 14,000 denominations have all read the Bible, and that they agree on all the important stuff. But the fact is, we have 14,000 denominations because they all disagree with each other on one or multiple levels, often disagreeing about who God even is and what it even means for us to be saved.

My question was, how can we objectively determine who is right or wrong? Clearly isolated individuals cannot be the measuring stick, because whereas I might believe that God is Trinity, that Jesus is both God and Man, and that we are saved by cooperating with God's grace, the guy sitting next to me may say that Jesus was human alone, that God the Father is one Person and one God, and say that we play absolutely no part in our salvation that that whether we are saved or not was determined before time ever began. We both read the Bible and got our conclusions from there. How can we settle the important questions of Who God is and how we are saved? Agreeing to disagree is not an option. Christians are meant to have one faith, not 14,000 faiths. There must be an objective outside measure of determining how the Bible is supposed to be read and understood, otherwise Christianity is not the well-ordered Body of Christ, but an anarchic hodgepodge of bacteria running around without regard for anyone else.

I can count on you 100% of the time to be a civil, intelligent voice of reason. I can't tell you how much I love your posts! You are a true credit to Christianity.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Translation is an extremely difficult process. A word in Hebrew or Greek may have variant meanings which are not brought out in a corresponding English word, for example. How do you know that the translators for your preferred translation chose the correct words, transferring the exact meaning perfectly 100% of the time?

All these issues apply to the Buddhist suttas too of course.

 

[Papoon]

For followers of revealed, faith-based religions (on the world stage, this generally refers to the Abrahamic religions) how do you handle the issue of infallibility?

What I mean is this: if your god was indeed perfect, and intended for his followers to correctly understand his perfect message, then he must have preserved a chain of infallibility which extends from god himself to the follower.

E.g. A "perfect" god must ensure that his chosen prophet is infallible; the prophet's writings (the holy books) must also be infallible; those who preserve those books must also be infallible; those who translates those books must also be infallible; those who expound the content of those books must also be infallible; those who read the books or the translations (the disciple) must also be infallible.

If there is any failure in that chain, does it not inherently prove that the imagined originator (the deity) is imperfect and fallible?

(It seems the Roman Catholic Church understood this problem from early on, and determined that infallibility proceeds through the Church, the Popes and Councils, the Bishops and their Priests - the authorized preservers, translators, and expounders of the "Message", etc.)

Any eternal God has no idea what IT is doing.

IT was like that without having any say in it.

 

[Shiranui117]

Any eternal God has no idea what IT is doing.

IT was like that without having any say in it.

Well, that just proves that we're all made in God's image, because none of us has a clue what we're doing!

 

[Papoon]

Well, that just proves that we're all made in God's image, because none of us has a clue what we're doing!

Strange but true

 

[BilliardsBall]

I am agnostic as to the circumstances regarding my birth, not to my current existence.

1. History concludes nothing; I have no personal knowledge of the circumstances of the various alleged prophecies, nor of the circumstances of the various alleged fulfillments. 2. Where you see a dozen NT writers, I see the possibility of one writer who manufactured the whole of the Bible. If we take any other book - let's say, a Harry Potter book - are there dozens of witnesses (characters) which testify to the magical feats of Harry Potter, or is there one writer (the author)?

My point is, I have no personal knowledge of any of the above.

Evidence is not proof.

Otherwise, using your argument, why not have a reasonable faith in the record of the Buddhist Pali canon in which the record of 500 fully enlightened arahants testify to the superiority of the Lord Buddha over the delusional gods?

Using your standards that personal knowledge is all knowledge or even the best knowledge, which facts can I believe? Is Harry Potter the subject of a book? Does this book exist if I've not read it? Do books exist? What is a book?

I'm unsure how you see one writer who manufactured the whole of the Bible, unless you want to say that your personal knowledge of faked books is above the knowledge of historians. Modern scholars accept multiple sources for the Bible--I've already cited the Septuagint as conclusive that there had to be at least two writers, one for each testament.

Again, history informs us that OT writers showed excellent knowledge of the construction, agronomy and etc. of their times. The same can be said of the NT. Do you have personal knowledge that all historians work against facts? Do you have personal reason to believe that archaeologists don't find coins, burial methods, remains of homes, stele and documents that verify the Bible, but rather that 100% of Bible archaeologists are fraudulent?

At what point should I think you know personal facts? At what point should I conclude that you are pretending not to know impersonal facts?

 

[BilliardsBall]

This isn't an answer, though. A Jehovah's Witness, a Oneness Pentecostal, a Mormon and a Catholic can all read the Bible and come away with EXTREMELY different ideas about Who Jesus is and Who God is--is Jesus both God and man, or is He just human, or is He just God? Is God the Father only, is He one God in three Persons, or one Person with three modes, or three separate Gods who work together?

Likewise, a Calvinist, a Lutheran, a Catholic and an Orthodox Christian all would read the Bible and come away with different ideas about how we are saved--does God predetermine whether we are saved, save us without our being involved, or save us with our cooperation?

You make the assumption that 13,999 denominations have not read the Bible, but one has. Or, you make the assumption that 14,000 denominations have all read the Bible, and that they agree on all the important stuff. But the fact is, we have 14,000 denominations because they all disagree with each other on one or multiple levels, often disagreeing about who God even is and what it even means for us to be saved.

My question was, how can we objectively determine who is right or wrong? Clearly isolated individuals cannot be the measuring stick, because whereas I might believe that God is Trinity, that Jesus is both God and Man, and that we are saved by cooperating with God's grace, the guy sitting next to me may say that Jesus was human alone, that God the Father is one Person and one God, and say that we play absolutely no part in our salvation that that whether we are saved or not was determined before time ever began. We both read the Bible and got our conclusions from there. How can we settle the important questions of Who God is and how we are saved? Agreeing to disagree is not an option. Christians are meant to have one faith, not 14,000 faiths. There must be an objective outside measure of determining how the Bible is supposed to be read and understood, otherwise Christianity is not the well-ordered Body of Christ, but an anarchic hodgepodge of bacteria running around without regard for anyone else.

I cited two facts that I think are salient here--that Jesus is said in the Bible to have died for the sin of mankind, and that He rose from the dead. List here any denominations in history that you feel are not cultic (using the Bible to proof text their cultic ideas rather than interpreting the Bible to obey the Bible itself) who believe from their Bible study that 1) Jesus died for a reason other than human sin 2) Jesus remained in His tomb:

* Sect or denomination 1

* Sect or denomination 2

* Sect or denomination 3

Thank you.