Verification of Revelation

[linwood]

This is split off of the "My brain and its constant questions" thread because AE and my back and forth arguing is taking ness`s thread off topic.


AE,

I had rebutted your last signifigant post to me (#101) point by point until I realised I was going to eat a hell of alot of bandwidth and succeed in allowing you to get away from the point.
So instead I`m going to try to address what I feel are the most significant points you made,condense a few others, and entirely ignore the rest.
:jiggy:
First though I want to re-iterate the original question that you never really answered.

-Please define the standards by which the revelations of the Bible are verified as "truth" .
-Please show that these standards aren`t based in some way on inherent Christian or Judaic bias or the Christian/Judiac scriptures themselves.
-Please explain how scientific method is used in these reviews.

Examples would be..
1: How has Christian/Judaic review used their standards to reject the "divinity" of the Koran to be "uninspired" yet used those same standards to find the NT and OT to be "divine".
2: Show how those same standards have been used to review the Cannonical Gospels comparitively.

The only answers you`ve given for these questions is...
[font=&quot]The content of revelation is the means by which we can establish criterea for review
Which is more than vague
And
[/font][font=&quot] (1) It was read in the churches - the OT was previously the only document read in the Jewish synogouge because it was accepted as the normative word of God. The fact that it was read in the churches is one of the most important criterea for later canonization. (2) The church fathers used it as the primary source for theology and instruction. The other source was tradition, which was derived from the NT.

Which contains nothing to verify divinity nor does it even resemble the "scientific" method you mentioned.
Not to mention that it presupposes the "truth" of Judaism/Christianity.
[/font]
Also please explain what you mean by.....

[font=&quot]...the record of the revelation becomes a part of nature ...

...[/font][font=&quot]when a person claims to have something from God, the revelation enters the natural realm...[/font]
[font=&quot]
...as you`ve been using it in alot of your postings lately and I`m uncertain what you mean.

All you have given as evidence of any standard is mysticism and tradition.
Niether of which are very compelling.
[/font]
_____________________________________________________________________

Above that line is really all I am truly interested in.
What follows is merely commentary on some of the arguments you used in the other thread and are not directly relevant to the OP.


[font=&quot]When I wrote that the NT was widely accepted as revelation,[/font][font=&quot]

[/font][font=&quot]No, you did not, you wrote...

[/font][font=&quot]...and the NT was immedeately accepted as revelation. [/font][font=&quot]

There is a rather large difference of intent between the two statements
.
[/font][font=&quot]When I wrote that the NT was widely accepted as revelation,[/font][font=&quot] [/font]
[font=&quot]I did so based upon a critical study of history with very specific criterea, and you incorrectly point to the church councils as proof for Christians accepting the NT as revelation.[/font][font=&quot]

[/font][font=&quot]I did no such thing

[/font][font=&quot] The councils did canonize the NT, but the NT itself claims to be revelation, and several characteristics of the NT church prove that it was widely accepted.[/font][font=&quot]

[/font][font=&quot]I never said it wasn`t widely accepted.
I said it wasn`t immediately accepted and it wasn`t, not in the form the councils eventually gave it.

How long did it take to canonize the NT in the form it is now?
How many councils were involved?
The Orthodox Christian Church existed for well over 300 years before the NT was widely accepted and even then it was disputed by numerous Christian sects.
Thats where you got those heretical Arians and Gnostic Christians.
The NT in it`s current form wasn`t widely accepted for decades even after it was compiled and deemed "divine".
Lastly I give you the Cathars and the Albigensian Crusade in the 13th century as evidence that even 900 years after the NT was cannonized there were very large VERY LARGE portions of believers that did not accept it .

To this very day different Christian sects can`t even agree on what the NT says millenia after it`s acceptance.

I mentioned the ecumenical councils but I specifically singled out the Council of Nicea.
the council of Nicea had nothing to do with canonizing the NT.

I used Nicea as example not as support for canonization of the NT but as evidence of the disagreement within Christianity about what was divine dogma/scripture and what was heresy.
Particularly pointing out the Christian Arian faith which did not agree with what the Council of Nicea eventually published as it`s creed.

[/font][font=&quot]Scientific and reasonable review is the reason why Christians reject the Gnostic Gospels, the JW's, the Mormons, Christian Science, and many other Christian sects. Their prophesies simply don't add up or make sense.

When compared to Christian dogma.
When compared on an equal footing they stand up every bit as well as the NT and OT which is to say "Not very well".
Scientific method would not presuppose the scripture of the NT was correct and use it for comparitive review of other texts.
There is nothing "scientific" about this method.
Considering the prophecies of Christianity don`t add up either sort of hurts your position.

[/font][font=&quot]Historical and reasonable review has been very very kind to Christianity.[/font][font=&quot]

They obviously never reviewed the Gospels or Exodus.
Or did you mean to say "Christian" historical and reasonable review has been very very kind to Christianity.
That would make sense.[/font]
[font=&quot]
[/font]
[font=&quot]


[/font]

 

[Scott1]

** grabbing popcorn **
Oooooh, this is gonna be good. Frubals to you linwood.

 

[linwood]

Thanks Scott.

It`s nice seeing you post lately and weren`t gone for too long.

I hope all is well with you.

 

[Melody]

*pulling up a chair next to Scott*

I admire a good debate.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I`m going to try to address what I feel are the most significant points you made,condense a few others, and entirely ignore the rest.


Fair enough, I will use the same technique.

 

[linwood]

and entirely ignore the rest.

Fair enough, I will use the same technique.

Awwww c`mon AE I was joking.

I`ve addressed all the pertinent points in your post.

If there is something I have ignored that you`d like an answer to just point it out and I`ll answer.
:162:

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I was joking too. You really are asking for a lot of material. Shall I address one point at a time and we debate it one by one? If so,

Please define the standards by which the revelations of the Bible are verified as "truth" .

OK, the best way to answer this question is to explain all of the problems and issues related to both the NT and OT cannonization processes. Since the acceptance of the revelations of the Bible as truth began before the recording of history (assuming that Abraham was a real person), the standards by which the revelations of the Bible is verified as "truth" must come as or after the Scriptures have been canonized.

To be perfectly honest, I don't know much about the OT. The prophet spoke, it came true, and that's how it was verified. There is no way to verify some of the "truths" of Scripture, particularly the creation stories of Genesis, but I'd say that the verification of it as truth comes from the balance of OT Scripture with the NT and the continued revelation of the same thing (eg, the law of non-contradiction). If God revealed himself as creator and then as a pineapple, I would be inclined not to believe it.

The OT Scriptures were accepted basically because of tradition. The Hebrew textual tradition is extremely reliable - they took great pride in their preservation of the record of the prophets. Genesis 1 is the root of my presuppositions for how science relates to theology - God is Creator and not a part of nature (etc), and this revelation is consistent with every other time that the prophets spoke of God. The OT tradition is studied scientifically by literary analysis, textual criticism, and archeology.

The transmission of the NT Scriptures is a much "cleaner" process. As you rightly pointed out, I did mean that the NT was immedeately accepted as revelation in the church, not widely accepted. The standard of accepting it as revelation is the standard for accepting the writings into the canon: it had to be apostolic and used in the churches. The apostolic and church use traces every book in the canon back to the earliest sources. The formation of the NT can be studied scientifically by means of form criticism and redaction criticism (which is what I do), textual criticism, archeology, history and other sciences. The most recent form criticism done by E. Earle Ellis suggests that the teachings in the NT which use the OT have for their roots the teachings of Jesus. Standard for entry into the canon then are: eyewitness account, apostolic witness, and use in the church (it is very important here to note that the early church fathers were disciples of the apostles and witnessed the collection of the Scriptures).

Verifying the truth of the Scriptures includes verifying historical references, critically verifying the authenticity of texts, and theological reflection (eg, locating important contradictions and explaining them, defining a systematic theology).

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Please show that these standards aren`t based in some way on inherent Christian or Judaic bias or the Christian/Judiac scriptures themselves.

Some truths are not verifiable, but are convincing because they fit into a larger theology.

The revelation constructs a systematic Jewish and Christian theology, so much of the verification is "inherently Christian," but it makes sense. For example, the church fathers who knew the apostles and later ones who were familiar with early texts were able to designate which texts were authentic. This simply appeals to reason.

However, we can review the texts critically (eg, scientifically and rationally) to determine if the texts are authentic- text criticism and linguistic criticism can confirm or deny the earliest texts as well as locate aditions, etc. Textual review is not unique to Christianity.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Please explain how scientific method is used in these reviews.

If you would like for me to further explain the role of NT criticism, I will be glad to do so.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Examples would be..
1: How has Christian/Judaic review used their standards to reject the "divinity" of the Koran to be "uninspired" yet used those same standards to find the NT and OT to be "divine".
2: Show how those same standards have been used to review the Cannonical Gospels comparitively.

Unfortunately, I do not know much about the Koran. The most significant Christian objection to the Koran is its inconsistentcy with the OT and the NT. The Koran has different testimony concerning Abraham (OT) and Jesus (NT). Because the canonization of the OT by the Jews and the NT by the Christians both have standards, the Koran violates the standard.

For example, a rule in textual criticism states that late writings cannot be accepted. The Koran appeared much later than the OT or NT text, and does not have a textual tradition which preceeds it, yet it contradicts an earlier text which addresses the same topics. No one who wrote the Koran heard what Jesus said concerning Himself, but it makes judgements concerning Jesus which contradict the witness of those who saw Him. Theology in the Koran is contrary to the theology of the NT, but the NT was written by comissioned apostles.

 

[linwood]

Thanks AE.

I don`t have time to answer your post tonight as I`ve got to crash shortly but I will tomorrow after work.

I just wanted to attempt to simplify this for both of us.

Lets take it one point at a time as you`ve suggested, there aren`t really that many points although they are pretty broad.

Lets just concentrate on the NT except when it has/needs direct support from the OT.
I`m far more familiar with the OT but certain books of the NT I`ve studied just as closly (Gospels, Acts) so it might be expediant to attempt to leave Judaism alone and concentrate on Christianity where we can.
Considering we`re both more familiar with Christianity in different ways (You far more than I).

If this is agreeable to you let me know.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Please define the standards by which the revelations of the Bible are verified as "truth" .
I suspect that we could debate this until the end of time.


Some standards of verification which can be applied elsewhere:

1) The subject matter outside of theological reflection must be verifiable. That is, the center of the subject matter in the NT is Jesus Christ. In order to be accepted into the canon, the material had to be written by eyewitnesses of Christ or comissioned apostles. This is why we cannot accept the Koran's judgement concerning Jesus. In the case of Paul, the eyewitnesses reviewed him and affirmed his comission during his first visit to Jerusalem. From a critical review of the text, we can conclude that there was a man named Jesus of Nazareth who was a teacher of the OT and died on a cross, and according to witnesses, he rose again. If the writers were incorrect and contradictory about everything else, we could conclude that the theological reflections are incorrect. However, if the writers were consistent and verifiable on most points, then more weight is given to the theological reflection.

2) Where the scripture writer touches the natural world outside of a theological reflection, he must be correct. That is, descriptions of the times are very important as they can be confirmed or denied by means of historical method. In the case of the NT, the Gospel writers were very accurate in their description of the city of Jerusalem (verifiable by archeology) and first century Judaism (eg, mentioning of the sects of the Saducees and Pharasees, which is confirmed in Josephus). Christians can apply this method to the testimony of Joseph Smith, who claimed by revelation that a tribe from Jerusalem in ca 800 BCE fled the city and came to South America in a submersible boat, eventually migrated to N. America and buried golden plates in NY.

We aren't going to accept someone who says theologically that the natural essence of the orange is really an apple.

3) One must be able to construct a systematic, non-contradictory theology from the entirity of the theological reflections of the text. The goal of interpretation is to balanace the theological reflections into one consistent message. If the revelation is inconsistent with reason and is contradictory, then it is rejected. From your point of view I assume that you would consider all theological reflection to be unreasonable. However, if we have a consistent theological reflection which continually says the same thing over thousands of years, and where it touches historical verification it is correct, and we can produce a verifiable textual tradition, it becomes somewhat convincing. Nevertheless, believing that the theological reflection is true becomes an excersize in faith. We can offer convincing scientific evidence that Jesus claimed to be God and his closest followers affirm it, and that these claims are supported by textual traditions. Believing that it is true is something else entirely.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Thanks AE.

I don`t have time to answer your post tonight as I`ve got to crash shortly but I will tomorrow after work.

I just wanted to attempt to simplify this for both of us.

Lets take it one point at a time as you`ve suggested, there aren`t really that many points although they are pretty broad.

Lets just concentrate on the NT except when it has/needs direct support from the OT.
I`m far more familiar with the OT but certain books of the NT I`ve studied just as closly (Gospels, Acts) so it might be expediant to attempt to leave Judaism alone and concentrate on Christianity where we can.
Considering we`re both more familiar with Christianity in different ways (You far more than I).

If this is agreeable to you let me know.

This is most agreeable and thanks.

 

[Athosxc]

Frubals to AE for a very well-done response, I think I'm going to join the others in watching this debate, it promises to be good!

 

[linwood]

AE,
I`m going to begin with the standard of truth used to determine verification of revelation considering I believe it`s what all of our other points hinge on.

1)The subject matter outside of theological reflection must be verifiable. That is, the center of the subject matter in the NT is Jesus Christ. In order to be accepted into the canon, the material had to be written by eyewitnesses of Christ or comissioned apostles. This is why we cannot accept the Koran's judgement concerning Jesus. In the case of Paul, the eyewitnesses reviewed him and affirmed his comission during his first visit to Jerusalem. From a critical review of the text, we can conclude that there was a man named Jesus of Nazareth who was a teacher of the OT and died on a cross, and according to witnesses, he rose again. If the writers were incorrect and contradictory about everything else, we could conclude that the theological reflections are incorrect. However, if the writers were consistent and verifiable on most points, then more weight is given to the theological reflection.

If I am correct only two of the Canonical gospels are assumed to be written by “eyewitnesses” Matthew and John. My first problem with this is that all of the gospels are written in the third person.
This is not how an “eyewitness” generally recalls an account.
My next problem is that none of the authors offers any information regarding themselves.
If they were there.
Why they were there.
Who they are.
We have no clear clue as to who these authors were let alone where they were and when.
The authors who the gospels are credited to weren`t credited until the second century.
Decades to a century after they were written.

Concerning Mark.
The ascription of this gospel to the authorship of Mark is a claim by Papias that John the Presbyter told him Mark was the apostle Peters secretary who wrote down everything Pater said.
Papias made this claim in c. 130 almost a century after mark is dated.

There is no other verifiable evidence for the authorship of Mark
Mark never mentions any first hand knowledge of Peter so I don`t know where John the Presbyter came by this information.
Considering the poor light The Gospel Mark put Peter in this seems spurious at best.
Mark doesn`t give any indication of being transliterated from Aramaic to Greek.
It seems to be an original Greek writing.
Peter would have been dictating in Aramaic not Greek.
Mark makes simple geographical errors concerning Palestine.
Errors he would not have made had he been there.
The Gospel of Mark speaks of historical happenings well after the Death of peter.
(The destruction of the Temple.)

So concerning the verification of Mark the authority you`ve got is sometime in c.130 when one guy said to another guy….and that’s it.

Concerning Luke and Acts.
Luke is not even considered to be an eyewitness but Pauls secretary.
(Kind cool all these poor guys had all these secretaries.)

Pauls is also not considered to be an eyewitness to Jesus.
Again the author (Luke) never claims to have known Paul in either his gospels or Acts.
Again, the only attribution of The Gospel of Luke and Acts to Luke is a claim made by a 2nd century Church leader, Irenaeus.

I can do the same with most of the NT.

If you contend as you say.

In order to be accepted into the canon, the material had to be written by eyewitnesses of Christ or comissioned apostles.

Then you will have to give a specific example of verification of an “eyewitness” account or of a commissioned author by an eyewitness.

This standard of Eyewitness verification is weak considering the eyewitnesses weren`t even named until the 2nd century.
This standard of evidence is weak considering those who named these authors so long after their works had a documented bias for Christianity.

2)Where the scripture writer touches the natural world outside of a theological reflection, he must be correct. That is, descriptions of the times are very important as they can be confirmed or denied by means of historical method. In the case of the NT, the Gospel writers were very accurate in their description of the city of Jerusalem (verifiable by archeology) and first century Judaism (eg, mentioning of the sects of the Saducees and Pharasees, which is confirmed in Josephus). Christians can apply this method to the testimony of Joseph Smith, who claimed by revelation that a tribe from Jerusalem in ca 800 BCE fled the city and came to South America in a submersible boat, eventually migrated to N. America and buried golden plates in NY.

Again you will have to give an example of historical geographic accuracy within the NT. It is true that the gospels are often accurate geographically but it is also true that Stephen Kings “The Stand” is also geographically accurate.

In other words one would expect geographical accuracy from an author who lived in the geographical area he is describing regardless of the “truth” of the message in what he has written.

The same holds true of the customs of Judaism.
Whether we know their identities or not the writers of much of the NT were Jews.
Their knowledge of Judaism is not surprising.
In fact it is in those areas where they show a lack of knowledge that the doubt of their authority lies .

Mark:5 speaks of Jesus and his followers crossing the sea of Galilee to the land of Gerasa where Jesus exorcises demons from a man and puts those demons into pigs then drives those pigs down the hill into the sea.
Modern archeology has established Gerasa was 30 miles from either the Dead Sea or the Sea of Galilee.

That’s a hell of a cattle/pig drive. I can give many more geographical problems with the NT writers supported by archeological evidence.

My point is geographical/cultural accuracy isn’t exceptional when we expect these authors to be eyewitnesses so this standard of verification is pretty weak. However when we expect these authors to have been eyewitnesses and they make these glaring mistakes we see that they weren’t eyewitnesses and the only conclusion is that the standard of evidence for verification is flawed and inconsistent.

We aren't going to accept someone who says theologically that the natural essence of the orange is really an apple.

But you already have in the example given above and another is the two genealogies in Matthew and Luke.
The two lines of descent to Joseph and Jesus are directly contradictory.
One is an apple and one is an orange and it is evident within the canonical text itself.

3) One must be able to construct a systematic, non-contradictory theology from the entirity of the theological reflections of the text. The goal of interpretation is to balanace the theological reflections into one consistent message. If the revelation is inconsistent with reason and is contradictory, then it is rejected. From your point of view I assume that you would consider all theological reflection to be unreasonable. However, if we have a consistent theological reflection which continually says the same thing over thousands of years, and where it touches historical verification it is correct, and we can produce a verifiable textual tradition, it becomes somewhat convincing. Nevertheless, believing that the theological reflection is true becomes an excersize in faith. We can offer convincing scientific evidence that Jesus claimed to be God and his closest followers affirm it, and that these claims are supported by textual traditions. Believing that it is true is something else entirely.

You`re claiming that Christianity has constructed one non-contradictory from the canonical Biblical texts?

Please explain the juxtaposition of Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Protestantism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, LDS, Angelicans, Methodist, Moravian and the other thousands of sects all relying on the same canonized Biblical text for support of their beliefs.

The very existence of these denominations is evidence that this 3rd standard if not just weak but non-existent.

If you want to get into the “no True Christian” argument we had best stop here.



Editted to include reference.
Diogenes the Cynicss Shredding of the Gospels
Wikipedia
The Bible.

 

[linwood]

Please show that these standards aren`t based in some way on inherent Christian or Judaic bias or the Christian/Judiac scriptures themselves.

Some truths are not verifiable, but are convincing because they fit into a larger theology.

This is a direct statement supporting the fact that the standards are biased.
If comparing one text to another a reviewer uses his own already established theology as a guide for "truth" no text outside of this theology can get a fair review.
This is exactly what I`ve said.

The revelation constructs a systematic Jewish and Christian theology, so much of the verification is "inherently Christian," but it makes sense. For example, the church fathers who knew the apostles and later ones who were familiar with early texts were able to designate which texts were authentic. This simply appeals to reason.

It only makes sense if those later church father were free of bias.
You`ve just stated..
"Some truths are not verifiable, but are convincing because they fit into a larger theology."
If part of the standard is that "truth" must fit into Chritian theology then that standard is biased.
These church fathers were personally biased (As every church father ever has been) AND they used a system of standards "inherently biased" for Christianity.

However, we can review the texts critically (eg, scientifically and rationally) to determine if the texts are authentic- text criticism and linguistic criticism can confirm or deny the earliest texts as well as locate aditions, etc. Textual review is not unique to Christianity.

I have already pointed out a couple of areas where the canonical Christian texts fail any unbiased scientific or literary review.

I will also say that while I have not as of yet read the Koran many of the Muslim members here have shown me passages that hold up far better and in fact perfectly when compared to unbiased scientific review on cosmology and naturalism.

Under my own minimal and uneducated review of Biblical text and the Koran the Koran comes out far ahead.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

This is going to be fun!!

Linwood, I am going to be using the research of E. Earle Ellis, The Making of the New Testament documents as my primary source. I won't deviate from it very much, and will use his sources where he is not sufficent. I seriously doubt that I will need to look elsewhere.

I have a very large assignment due this week, so I need to be breif here. I may be able to post a longer explanation later.

I don't think that your point that the Gospels are written in third person has any validity at all. An eye-witness account in this case is in the form of narratives.

Both Luke and Mark were known by the apostles, and the material in Acts establishes authority for thier Gospels. Acts was written by Luke and the material cooresponds with information in the Pauline letters which adderess the same historical events (like the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 is recounted in Gal. 1-3). Luke was present at the council in Jerusalem, had contact with all of the present apostles, and had occasion to collect all of his information for both books from eyewitnesses. The close association between Mark and Luke is found in Acts, Paul, and the early church fathers.

We have a pretty precise date for one of the trials of Paul in Corinth because archeologists have found a cornerstone of a building with the name of the governor listed in the biblical text - and the governor only ruled for one year. The incription is on the Gallio stone with the rule from 51-52 CE, and Acts has Paul before Gallio in Acts 18. Also, the descriptions of Jerusalem in the NT are confirmed by archeology. I will have to look up examples if you are interested.

I must say that the geneologies at the beginning of the Gospels are not a significant point. It is rather trite. I am referring rather to the prophet claiming to be able to fly or something like that and not being able to do so. I have come across several explanations for the geneologies - like one tracing it through Mary and one through Joseph, etc. When I studied it, I found that Jewish geneologies are not very trustworthy because they usually are pretty selective and name only the important figureheads in the family - neither geneology was intended to be a historically reliable, scientific list. Because of the nature of Jewish geneologies, I concluded that the lists do not need to match because they attempt to prove differing theological points: one that Jesus is the Son of David, the Messiah, and the other, that Jesus is the second Adam, inspired by Pauline theology. Furthermore, due to the nature of Jewish geneology, they both can be considered correct because both are selective.

You`re claiming that Christianity has constructed one non-contradictory from the canonical Biblical texts?

I am claiming that from a reasonable interpretation of the text itself, a non-contradictory theology can be construced. That is, the text does not propose contradictory theological reflections. There is only one Christian confession and yet several denomenations which hold the same confession while ephasizing one point or another within the text. Some sects violate the Christian confession and are not accepted by the Body of Christ: the Mormons, JWs, Christian Scientists, etc.

I also must say that I don't think that you have adequately disputed the original question:

Does Christianity have standards of verification that are not biased and can be used to verify other competing revelations?

You are primarily taking issue with whether or not the Bible passes Christianity's own test.

 

[linwood]

I also must say that I don't think that you have adequately disputed the original question:

Thats because you haven`t read my last post yet

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I have re-read your last post and still cannot find a an argument reasonable enough for you to continue to assert that Christians have no more reason to accept the NT as revelation than to believe in Santa Claus. While I do not arrogantly assume that our dialouge will cause you personally to accept the NT as such, are you still comfortable with this metapor?

You are primarily taking issue with Christian bais. The church fathers were the only folks who could authenticate the two main critereon for the canon: apostolic authority and use in the church. It should come as no surprise to any of us the Christianity would seek to preserve its original testimony from competing prophets, etc who say something about Jesus which was not given by the apostles and has not been used in the church. It is a fairly simple question.

Second century texts are valid as eyewitnesses for the collection of the NT writings. I follow scholarship which dates the Gospels from ca 54 to 90 CE, and second century begins at 100 CE. That is freaking close to the time it was written, and should more than qualify for the two relatively simple questions that we ask the early fathers: was this text used in the church and is it apostolic. Why would we accept contradictory theological reflections concerning Christ from those who had no contact with the apostles and had not seen Jesus?

No one, of course, claims that Paul was an eyewitness to Christ - he didn't write a Gospel. Luke confesses in the first chapter of his Gospel that he interviewed folks. Both of these writers were comissioned by the apostles, Paul particularly and Luke by implication.

Perhaps I can be more specific as to how theological reflection should relate to history. The NT's interaction with history is on a real level. That is, because the Gospel writers related to their environment in a very real way, it gives creedance to the rest of their testimony. We find cultural and physical descriptions of the NT in archeological and sociological studies. The NT is not a historical fantasy like the Book of Mormon or Christian Science.

You are not going to be able to defend that the texts cannot be studied scientifically. Christianity has a long line of scholarship which interacts with the text on a very dry, natural level. You may be able to continue to insist that there is a bias, and I cannot think of a way to convince you otherwise, except to show that the questions are pretty simple. You are most correct that Christians reject what does not fit into our theology because we have the apostoloic witness to Christ, we are convinced that it fits perfectly with the OT, the NT text is the only legitimate authority on the subject because of its nature as the apostolic witness, and quite frankly, we therefore have but our faith in Christ and eating and drinking His body and blood satisfies and any other revelation is bound to be from a differing source and contradictory to the message that we have preserved.

 

[linwood]

I just want to re-focus this discussion because we seem to be getting too far into the details and away from the original parameters.

These are the original points in question.

-Please define the standards by which the revelations of the Bible are verified as "truth" .
-Please show that these standards aren`t based in some way on inherent Christian or Judaic bias or the Christian/Judiac scriptures themselves.
-Please explain how scientific method is used in these reviews.

I`m going to go through each and see what we have so far.

1)-Please define the standards by which the revelations of the Bible are verified as "truth"

We agree the standards for verification of revelation should be the same standards as used to announce a text canonical.

You stated the standards as..

1) The subject matter outside of theological reflection must be verifiable.

2) Where the scripture writer touches the natural world outside of a theological reflection, he must be correct..

3) One must be able to construct a systematic, non-contradictory theology from the entirety of the theological reflections of the text.

Regarding #1)
1) The subject matter outside of theological reflection must be verifiable.

I concede much of the content of the NT is verifiable
However I have shown how much of the subject matter is not only un-verifiable but incorrect coming from the perspective of the attributed authors.
I have shown how we do not know who wrote the books of the NT and therefore cannot know if they were written by apostles or authors commissioned by the apostles.

Therefore they are not verifiable.

I have supported these assertions with the following evidence.

- The fact that the Gospels/Acts weren’t attributed to an author until the second century.

Even with the dates you give for origins of these writings the attribution of authorship is still anywhere from 50 to 80 years after the fact.
For 50- 80 years no one knew who wrote them until the church fathers proclaimed authorship on the weakest of possible support.(rumor/heresay) -The fact that the content outside of theological consideration is indeed wrong and often directly contradictory within the texts itself. (geography/Josephs genealogy)

I gave geographical evidence of incorrect content, I gave internal contradictory evidence in Josephs genealogy.
I can give more but I’m not going for quantity here considering all I have to show is any direct content that does not hold up to the standards you’ve set forth.
I’ve done this.

Your rebuttal of the genealogy evidence is that it is not significant.
If one of the standards is the verification of evidence outside of theological reflection then two directly contradictory genealogies is very significant.
Your rebuttal that one of those genealogies was Mary’s is not supportable and you know the reasons why.
You go on to say that Jewish genealogies aren’t trustworthy to begin with.
If the genealogies in the NT aren’t trustworthy then they fail your own standard. Why were these books canonized?

The history, origins, and writers of the Koran are more reliably established than those of the NT.

This standard accepts the Koran as divine.

2) Where the scripture writer touches the natural world outside of a theological reflection, he must be correct..

Regarding #2)
2) Where the scripture writer touches the natural world outside of a theological reflection, he must be correct..

I wish to point out here that regardless of what evidence I deem “Outside of theological reflection” you can rebut that I am incorrect and my point does indeed fall within theological reflection.

The standard itself is too subjective to be consistent because “theological reflection” itself is based on faith or interpretation.
This in and of itself makes this standard biased. For instance Acts 28:3-6 tells the story of Paul being bitten by a venomous snake and surviving without a single ill affect.

I would say this is contradictory to “The natural world”
You would state it is divine intervention.

The standard is weak, biased, and far too subjective to be of value

I’ve submitted geographical evidence of incorrect content concerning “the natural world”.
There are numerous geographical errors in Mark alone. Again, I can submit more but I don’t need too.

Mark also makes numerous errors regarding Jewish culture and customs such as the trial of Jesus before the Jewish priests.

At night, not held in the Temple, held at Passover.
It wouldn’t have been held at night, in the high priests house, or at Passover.
Lastly Mark has the death of John the Baptist during Jesus` life .
Josephus has Johns death at 36 CE years after Jesus` crucifixion.

So much for Mark as an eyewitness or direct commission, or perhaps it is Josephus who is wrong. Either way it undermines two very popular foundations of support.

I have also pointed out that the Koran appears to have a much stronger grasp of the natural world than the NT when you compare the verifiable claims made by each book.

This standard accepts the Koran as divine.

3) One must be able to construct a systematic, non-contradictory theology from the entirety of the theological reflections of the text.

This last standard works for almost any religion.
It gives support to my assertion that there is no distinct different between the NT and other religious texts (Koran) .

The Koran ( from what little I know of it) has constructed a non-contradictory theology from the entirety of theological reflections in the text.
At least as well as the NT has if not more thoroughly.

In other words this standard accepts the Koran as divine.