Claims about the NT

[Guest shiloh357]

Who determines what books are divinely inspired? What authority do they have to do so?

Well, it is not a case of anyone having the "authority" in terms of being the all-knowing expert. It is case of examining the texts for the internal evidence of being inspired. In fact, a very good critea early on was set in place to weed out noninspired material that did not fit. For one thing the Bible claims itself be inspired from OT to NT.

The current jews do not consider any of the NT as included in their canon. Your point is irrelevant.

No, it is not irrelevant. We are talking about the apocrypha,not the NT and the Jews reject the apocryphra for the same reasons the Christians do. What they think or don't think about the NT is not material to this issue, thus it is YOUR point that irrelevant and immaterial in a discussion about the apocrypha.

So let me get your thinking straight on this point. You claim that the validating point to be considered divinely inspired is that the stories must mention some miracle within that story the shows the author is speaking for god?

No, that is not what I said. Try actually reading my posts instead of assigning values to me that I did not express.

The entire quran is based on the miracle of the angel Gabriel appearing and dictating the word of Allah. So, according to your thinking, the quran should be included in the bible?

No, that would not be according to my thinking. You dont' read well enough to understand my "thinking." All you seem to be able to do drum up silly fallacious comparisons that bear not even the slightest semblance to the issues I have raised.

QUOTE

4. None of the prophets or apostles who actually penned the Scriptures ever refer to the Apocrypha as authoritative. They only refer to the other books in the 66 book canon of Scripture.

I would be surprised if they did. Just like jealous authors, they tend not to promote other people's works over their own.

Which is an emotional value YOU assign to them and not a statement based on fact.

Furthermore, they do not behave like jealous authors. What we find is they cite one another numerous times (unlike jealous authors).

It depends on how you interpret the particular prophecy and its alleged fulfillment.

There is only one to interpret fulfillment. That is whether or not the event described has occurred or not. Much has not been fuflfiled and a lot has. You can try to muddy the water as much as you want to, but it will be an act of futility, cause you really are not in much of a position to challenge us (based on your performance thus far).

It is irrelevant what is accepted into canon or not. The fact is that there are other writings about Jesus that date of the same time period as the books of the bible. These other writings have not been included in the bible for several reasons. However, it does not detract from the fact that they exist, and should be looked at as possible evidence that may describe the truth.

It was looked into and that is why it was rejected.

Besides, the apocrypha is pre-Christian, mostly and really has no bearing on the Christian faith.

[Guest shiloh357]

You are mistaken. I have asked this question to the board much earlier and was given the response that John is probably the only gospel that is not tainted by conflation or collaboration that may be a primary source. You are free to not accept anything you dislike. See my disclaimer above.

The problem is that you are the only assigning the notion of "contamination" with conflation and/or collaboration. Neither concept negatively affect the autheticity, or accuracy of the text. You are erecting a standard that is simply an attempt to get around the accuracy of the text. No other text is judged as "contaminated" just because it was the product of one or more persons. The entire Bible istelf is the work 40 different authors over a 1,500 year span of time from over three continents and from various walks of life. And yet, the Bible has an amazing unity within it.

The fact is that thousands of manuscripts that are known to have been transcribed in the first three centuries have shown errancy.

In terms of content, substance and doctrine no inerrancy has been found. Again, you speak from ignorance and really nothing but a parrot of someone else's misguided and errant research.

By far, most of the errors are common, simple mistakes of spelling, transpositions that do not change the meaning of the text.

Those are called "variants" are expected in a text where the human element is involved.

However, there are examples of more significant changes between the manuscripts. One was the pericope adulterae. Another is the continuation of Mark

Those not considered "errors" by anyoe competent and intelligent enough to properly understand the handling of manuscript evidence.

beyond what some scholars claim is the resurrection and Jesus' appearance and direction to the woman to tell the disciples, but they did not for they were afraid.

Actually, what the text tells us is that they did not tell any one on their way to the disciples. No doubt for fear they would be accused of stealing the body and being put to death. The text in Mark does not say they did not tell the disciples. In fact the other texts tell us they did tell the disciples.

Yet another is the Johannine comma which happens to also be the only place in the NT that refers to an allusion of a triune god.

No, that is the all over the NT as far as the triune nature of God is concerned. Again, it is problematic but it does absolutely no damage to the Scripture and contradicts no teaching of scripture and again, there are scholars on both sides of the issue. So, it is not cut and dried. It does not present any problem significant enough to cast doubt on the rest of the Bible, except in the minds of those who are grasping at every straw they can find to discredit the Bible.

You forget that because of the sheer volume of manuscripts that were in circulation in the first three centuries, no detection of errors could be made. Factor in the methods of communications, of copying, of language barriers, etc, and it becomes easily understood.

Wrong. The copying methods were extremely sophisticated and stringent even by standards today.

As for the OT, the discoveries at Qumran have shown us just how reliable our OT scriptures are. Even today, when a Jewish rabbinical scribe pens the text of the Pentateuch, his work is checked by at least three other senior Scribes who are in authority over Him and in the case of the Torah, the letters are copied from an existing scroll and are never written from memory, and each line has a certain number of letters. The lines are checked against other Torah scrolls and then they are counted to make sure the number of letters on each line match. This is done by multiple scribes in order insure accuracy. This is an ancient practice still in place today.

Even with the NT, copies were checked against other copies by multiple scribes in order ensure accuracy in the text. There was a process in place to make copies in order to preserve the text. They cared about accuracy in transmision as much as we do today.

Even if it were aligned with the character of the main character of the story, any insertion or addition goes against the notion of inerrancy, and authenticity. I could easily add lines of dialog to Pygmalion by George Bernhard Shaw. My additions are still a forgery no matter how in-character these lines of dialog may be.

The problem is that you seem to be operating under the assumption that the story of the woman caught in adultery is not part of the original, and I am saying that the jury is still out on that there are many scholars who see it as authentic and there are scholars who don't. Just because you side with the scholars who do not see it as authentic does not give you the right to treat them as the final word on the issue and then operate under the assumption that the case is closed on the matter.

You seem to be under the wrong impression that if a story depicts a self-effacing author, and presents the author in an embarassing light, then the rest of the story is then not exaggerated. That simply does not follow.

Yes it does folow. If the purpose was create glowing account of the life of Jesus with intent of sanitizing the the story, and to inlcude ones' self as a follower and partner of Jesus, there is no rational purpose in making one's self out to be the worse than the enemies Jesus was facing. If anything it would be more natural to hold one's self up as the epitome of a follower of Jesus to present one's self as the person who was the most faithful and stood with Jesus when others failed. The account presents the disciples in such an embarassing light that no one would have written themselves in such a story in that manner.

You also seem to be under the impression that if a story contains a culturally unorthodox (women being the first to encounter the resurrected Jesus) plot, that it cannot be exaggerated. A wolf cross-dressing in woman's clothing to deceive a little girl is also an culturally unorthodox plot device. However, being unorthodox does not make it immune from exaggerations.

Invalid comparison.

The first problem is that I did not say that the presence of an unorthodox plot device means that a story cannot be exaggerated. You are misrepresenting my position. I am saying that the story contains a cultural element that would have not likely occurred in an account that orgininates in a strictly patriarchial culture. That cannot be compared to a fictitious story meant to be entertaining and is understood to be such.

The fact is that given women had no real standing as witnesses in that culture, women would not have been dispatched as witnesses. The fact that cultural norms were violated shows the accuracy of the text. It is consistent with Jesus refusal to degrade women for being women. It shows Jesus once again, refusing to play favorites with gender. That cannot be in any way copared to Little Red Riding Hood. Again, it would be nice if you could provide intelligent, substantive and meaningful comparisons, as opposed to the nonsense you seem bent on producing here. It really shows the weakness of your position that you cannot do so.

[Guest shiloh357]

I understand perfectly. You wish to paint science as in a perpetual state of flux while trying to frame historical beliefs as being static.

No, that is not exactly what I said.

That is not the truth. Science is always open to new evidence uncovered by new techniques, as historical beliefs are also open to the introduction of new evidence uncovered by new techniques. Neither should be viewed as static so that they never change their minds. Neither should be viewed as in a constant state of flux to connote that they cannot make up their minds.

"Which is just just a restatement of what I already said :rolleyes

Many christians have told me that the absence of evidence to support the existence of their god is not evidence that their god does not exist.

Similarly, I put it to you that the absence of evidence to the contrary is not evidence to support.

But we are dealing two different contexts. We cannot prove the existence of God anymore that you can disprove it.

But in this particular context, we are dealing with the historicity of a real person, for which the weight of evidence is weighs heavier in His favor, whether you accept the evidence or not. The inability to disqualify the evidence demonsrates that your little above-mentinoed axiom doesn't really apply in this case.

[UndecidedFrog]

DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian. My opinions are my own. You do not have to accept them if you dislike them.

Dear RunningGator,

Thank you for your response to my comments.

Many christians have told me that the absence of evidence to support the existence of their god is not evidence that their god does not exist.

I will say I find this very hard to believe since the amount of evidence to support the existence of God is vast.

Chances are you are just misrepresenting what they to you.

Please allow me to know what I experienced. This is indeed what many christians have told me. I am not misrepresenting what they told me.

Thanks for your concern.

Regards,

UF

[UndecidedFrog]

DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian. My opinions are my own. You do not have to accept them if you dislike them.

Dear RunningGator,

Thank you for your response to my comments.

Please allow me to know what I experienced. This is indeed what many christians have told me. I am not misrepresenting what they told me.

Did these same Christians believe the Bible was the Word of God?

To claim to be a Christian and say there is no evidence for God is like claiming to be an American and then saying there is no evidence to show there is a United States of America.

I have no idea what these christians believe. From my experience, I have met christians who believe a wide array of different things.

This quote was from a stream of conversation. They said that in response to my statement that there is no credible (objective, verifiable, validatable) evidence to support the existence of their god. They responded by stating that the absence of evidence does not equate to evidence of the absence of god.

So I have similarly stated to you, that the absence of evidence to the contrary does not equate to evidence to support.

You are free to imagine if these are "true" christians to your heart's content. It matters not to me.

Regards,

UF

[UndecidedFrog]

DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian. My opinions are my own. You do not have to accept them if you dislike them.

Dear RunningGator,

Thank you for your response to my comments.

it is not the Christians that I question, it is you, to be honest.

You are free to question all you want. You are free to believe me or not. Either way, it's no skin off my back.

Regards,

UF

[Sir Gareth]

First off, Erham is not a trustable source. While he will bash the gospels he will believe a jewish mystic who wrote about Jesus some three hundred years later.

Dr Craig Evans (A textual critic of Erham's ability without the dubious lack of ethics or desire to get famous) has pretty much destroyed all of Erham's claims.

Lets go with point one. The gospels were written thirty five to sixty five years afer Jesus death and ressurection. Ok, historically this is as good as it gets. All the writting we have about Alexander the great comes over a hundered years later. Augustus Ceaser has only three things written about him that come five hundered years later. In historical terms writtings this early by eyewitnesses or close associates of eyewitnesses is like a goldmine with diamonds on the floor.

The people who wrote the gospels were either direct eye witnesses or only once removed.-Mark's writtings are from Peter, Luke was an avid historian who intereviewd all the apostles he could as well as other eye witnesses to the life of Christ.

The fact that the writers recoreded the truth and not just what they felt like is proven by the fact that they wrote things that could either be disproven (if false) and by fact that they wrote embarrasing things. The Gospel writers admit that the apostles often times doubted, questioned and even argued with Jesus, making them look bad. In first cewntury Jewish society women had a very low role, but the male writters of the NT admitted without hesitation that women found the tomb empty before them. Finally if what they had written were lies the Jewish authorities would have produced Jesus' body and stopped it all right then and there.

There is some evidence that yes the writting of Mark influenced the others, but there are also evidence for the fact that the writtings of einstien influenced other physiscts, does that mean all of physics is totally worthless now?

Whats more and what Erham can't explain away is the fact that dozens of extra biblical sources (Joesephus, tacitus, etc) support a great deal of what the bible says.

[Guest]

.... You are free to question all you want. You are free to believe me or not. Either way, it's no skin off my back ....

I Believe Jesus

Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.

Mark 8:38

And You Will Too

For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.

So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

Romans 14:11-12

Now

And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.

Then saith he to Thomas, reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.

And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

John 20:26-28

Or Later

And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.

Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,

And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

John 5:27-29

And That Dear One Is Far Worst Than A Little Skin Off The Back

And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:

Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

Mark 9:47-48

>>>>>()<<<<<

Believe

Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

John 11:25

And Be Blessed Beloved

Love, Joe

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

John 3:16-18

[40bill]

Even though it can and will always be a touchy subject, matters of faith are just that...faith. Scientific fact is nice to have, but then it becomes law, not faith.

Paul once said that 'our wisdom is foolishness to the world'...we believe what many to be unbelievable...

but that should not cause US to lose OUR faith.

An age old 'problem' with belief in the gospels is the oft quoted issue of translation and interpretation by different groups and sects. As Christians, what we have to find is the continuous core of the Gospel...that Jesus came to earth for our sins in order for humans to be able to have a direct relationship with God the father through Jesus Christ.

[Guest yod]

DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian. My opinions are my own. You do not have to accept them if you dislike them.

"The Gospels "were written thirty-five to sixty-five years after Jesus' death by people who did not know him, did not see anything he did or hear anything that he taught, people who spoke a different language from his and lived in a different country from him." They are not disinterested accounts of what "really" happened, an impartial record of an infallible oral tradition. The anonymous authors were often biased "in light of their own theological understandings". Nor are the Gospels independent - "Mark was used as a source for Matthew and Luke" - and for many of the stories about Jesus there is no "corroboration without collaboration". And yet they are still "widely inconsistent, with discrepancies filling their pages, both contradictions in details and divergent large-scale understandings of who Jesus was."

Bart D. Ehrman, Biblical scholar, and Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at UNC-Chapel Hill.

Professor Ehrman makes several claims:

1) Gospels were written 35-65 years after Jesus' death

2) by people who did not know Jesus, did not see anything he did or hear anything he taught. (by deduction, could not be eyewitnesses)

3) They are not disinterested accounts of what really happened. (implying that the writers had an agenda beyond recording history)

4) Gospels are not independent, Mark was used as source for Matthew and Luke.

Are these claims true to your understanding? Just curious what your take on this quote may be.

Regards,

UF

1. you are most decidedly NOT undecided

2. One much smarter than you has been trying to alter (in order to disprove) the Word of God since the Garden of Eden.

3. I think there is enough evidence for a decision that;

(a) there is a God

(b) He's telling us something in a book called the Bible

( c) A man named Yeshua ben Yoseph HaNatzret (Jesus, son of Joseph of Nazareth) was respected as a Prophet and Rabbi while living in the Galilee area and then was crucified and rose from the grave. Thousands of eye witnesses of that day were willing to sacrifice their own lives instead of denying the veracity of that statement according to secular history if you don't trust the Word of God.

(d) there are millions of people,(like ME!) who claim to know Him based on faith (strong trust) and who will attest that HE IS GOOD!!!

We really wish you could find out. Nothing would make most of us happier than for you to find the joy you are looking for in life. I'm certain without asking that many of us have prayed only for the Lord's best in your life. Sometimes we get impatient and I ask forgiveness...but it's because we want you to know what abundant life means. That's why we like you hanging out even if your only purpose here is to be a cantankerous twit sometimes.

I mean that in total love, of course.