Hey i know how Jesus was able to walk on water

[knapplc]

They try to show proof for Jesus. That site is not unbiased at all. That is the same site that I discussed just a few posts ago that tries to use these non-biblical sources that don't add up. Obviously we all will agree or disagree on this topic but that site is not unbiased.

Exactly. An unbiased source would not begin with the assertion that the bible is factual and a "good source" and try to prove that notion.

Further, the assertion that there are 5,600 copies of the New Testament which were written in the first century AD, is entirely false. Further, the assertion that the "facts" contained therein are 99.5% accurate is laughable (it also raises the very troubling point that the Bible is not infallible - according to these guys, it's .5% fallible), especially when they make no such percentage claim about Herodotus, whose work I just finished reading a couple of months ago and which contain a myriad of verifiable facts.

Using this site as any kind of unbiased source is a crock. Call it what it is - a Christian apologist echo chamber. Nothing more.

 

[Undone]

knapp, what "facts" in the Bible exist that you believe to be false that are specific stumbling blocks for you?

I think inerrancy is generally misunderstood with laypersons in the church. There's very clearly a difference in what the Bible literally says and what it affirms. A classic example of this is found in Mark chapter 4:

"The Kingdom of God is like a grain of mustard seed which, when sown upon the ground, is the smallest of all the seeds on earth. Yet when it is grown, it grows up to be the greatest of all shrubs."

The smallest of all seeds?! Oh noes!!!!111 I just googled it, and there are seeds smaller than the mustard seed, so that means the entire Bible is false!!!!11

This is akin to what skeptics actually do. But is Jesus teaching a lesson on botany? No! He's making an analogy. Is the whole Bible thrown out because in this particular case, what it says is not inerrant? No. Because what it affirms is true.

 

[knapplc]

But... the mustard seed thing is an issue. If the Bible is the "infallible word of God," and it contains inaccuracies, you can't justify that with a new phrase of, "It's an affirmation."

When do the new justifications end? At what point does the Bible become a single, definable thing? The fact is, it doesn't. How we view the Bible changes over time. It was, at first, an organization of various documents, arranged by Greek theologians in the second century. Originally, even Paul wasn't writing anything that he intended to become "the word of God." Paul was clearly simply writing letters, but now we see his epistles as 'the infallible word of God' because they're contained in the Bible. The declaration that Paul's letters had some holy connotation occurred centuries after his death.

What "facts" are problematic? That depends on how much time you've got.

 

[Undone]

Ok, so I see that you assert that the mustard seed example is a problem in your eyes. I'm being completely sincere when I say that I'm pretty surprised that it is such. It seems to me a good example of how the exact definition of inerrancy and infallability with regards to Scripture is quite honestly not easy to define.

For the critic, it can be used in this way. But it is in my opinion quite rational, taken in context with the mustard seed analogy, that the inerrancy of Scripture is as I've explained above. I'm not going to beat anyone over the head with this - I'm merely providing one defense.

 

[knapplc]

So... you're steering the conversation into an area you've got predetermined answers for? I clearly said the mustard seed thing was one of many issues, emblematic of the whole, not specifically speaking of that one. The more salient point is the never-ending justification process, which crops up any time evidence is brought to light which contradicts religious dogma. A yet more salient point is the misuse of the texts compiled in the Bible which were never intended to act as "the word of God," Paul's epistles being the most obvious example.

 

[Undone]

So... you're steering the conversation into an area you've got predetermined answers for?

I beg you to give me more credit than that. No - that was not my intent, for which I can only give my word. I'm more than obliged to allow the discussion to go in any direction that any given poster prefers. In #150, you had made the statement that the Bible is not infallible. I provided a defense (using an example) with the intent to show that the issue of Biblical inerrancy is a complex issue, not narrowly defined, as I explained in my "what is says" and "what it affirms" diatribe. I don't pretend that it's not (complex), and no good theologian should in my opinion say otherwise.

I clearly said the mustard seed thing was one of many issues, emblematic of the whole, not specifically speaking of that one.

Ermm...yes, understood.

The more salient point is the never-ending justification process, which crops up any time evidence is brought to light which contradicts religious dogma. A yet more salient point is the misuse of the texts compiled in the Bible which were never intended to act as "the word of God," Paul's epistles being the most obvious example.

Please expand on this, if you're so obliged. If not, I understand.

 

[knapplc]

We're getting circular here. I read your explanation of "says" vs. "affirms." I responded to it in #152 with a concern about the ex post facto justifications and a question about where that ends. Focusing solely on the mustard seed argument was not a full response to my concerns in #152. These are difficult questions and there are no answers for them which lead to anything other than faith in man, not God, as I also said earlier in the thread.

Regarding the misuse of texts in the Bible... what's to expand on? I was quite clear in my statement, and it's not even debatable. Paul had no intention when he wrote those letters of having them be anything other than letters to that person or people. He had no intention of having them included in a compilation of "holy texts" which were to later be called "the word of God." That's not a point of debate, is it? We're all clear what Paul intended for his writings, yes?

 

[Undone]

We're getting circular here. I read your explanation of "says" vs. "affirms." I responded to it in #152 with a concern about the ex post facto justifications and a question about where that ends. Focusing solely on the mustard seed argument was not a full response to my concerns in #152. These are difficult questions and there are no answers for them which lead to anything other than faith in man, not God, as I also said earlier in the thread.

This helps me to understand your perspective knapp, yes. To paraphrase, it's the inability to know if it's really from God directly and how to objectively define that. That's what I believe you're saying, at any rate.

But just for the record, I don't believe I conflated your point above with my point about how Biblical inerrancy is understood. I understand that the mustard seed discussion is not a full response to your concerns in #152. I would however point out that the manner in which man's view of the Bible may or may not change with time does not necessarily show that the message and content of it does not contain objective truths. Now I know that you didn't say this. But I'm attempting to give a better answer to #152, if you desire that.

Regarding the misuse of texts in the Bible... what's to expand on? I was quite clear in my statement, and it's not even debatable. Paul had no intention when he wrote those letters of having them be anything other than letters to that person or people. He had no intention of having them included in a compilation of "holy texts" which were to later be called "the word of God." That's not a point of debate, is it? We're all clear what Paul intended for his writings, yes?

Again, your point rings clear here as well. That is to say, I understand what your issue is.

 

[Landlord]

Peter thought of Paul's letters as being the inspired word of God.

 

[knapplc]

Peter thought of Paul's letters as being the inspired word of God.

Which book is that cited in? Acts?

EDIT - NM, I found it: It's in II Peter, which has disputed authorship, and likely was written in the 2nd Century. So... not sure that's the endorsement we were looking for.

 

[Landlord]

Peter thought of Paul's letters as being the inspired word of God.

Which book is that cited in? Acts?

EDIT - NM, I found it: It's in II Peter, which has disputed authorship, and likely was written in the 2nd Century. So... not sure that's the endorsement we were looking for.

An endorsement nonetheless. It's clear that Paul considered his words to be authoritative as well, even if it isn't stated explicitly. He encouraged believers to follow him and be imitators of him, as he was of Jesus. He introduced himself as an apostle not by men but by Jesus' directives. He often gave directives and commands, explaining that they were not from him, but from God (and also the other way around). He also quotes the gospel of Luke alongside OT Scripture. In Revelation, John claimed the book was the testimony of Jesus, fulfilling Isaiah 8:16-20. The author of Hebrews also seemed to imply that the apostles were doing the inspired work of God in Heb 2:3-4.

Paul's letters were circling around as one body of text considered authoritative as early as A.D. 90 - H[enry] Cha[dwick], ``Christianity Before the Schism of 1054,'' Encyclopedia Britannica: Macropaedia, 1977 ed.

They also didn't particularly need any defense because even the heretics in the early church considered them authoritative - Hans von Campenhausen, The Formation of the Christian Canon, trans. J. A. Baker (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972), pp. 189, 196, 201

Now, all of this is not to say that the apostles knew they were authoring what would eventually become one complete edition of all of God's inspired writings - I would guess that they didn't have that kind of foresight, but I suppose they could have. It's also not to say that this is incontestable proof of anything - only that if you are reasoning inductively versus deductively, that there is plenty there to provide a solid foundation of belief that the NT authors considered their writings to be inspired and inerrant.

 

[knapplc]

John who? That's a major problem here. We don't know John, the Disciple of Jesus, wrote Revelation. It's attributed to John, and it says it's written by John, but that doesn't mean it was. Modern scholarship tends to lean toward its writing as dating to the latter years of the first century - far too late to have been authored by a Disciple.

And we know that it was a common practice among apocryphal authors to name their works after Disciples to grant them legitimacy, the Gnostics being some of the better examples of these writings. The Gospel of Mary Magdalene, the Gospel of Judas, the Gospel of Philip... these are all ambiguously written, yet attributed to known people in the time of Jesus. Yet it's widely accepted by Christians that these are not canon, but apocrypha. Who's to say? Who truly knows? Canon, according to the Christian Bible, was set several centuries after the facts they describe. And while I have good knowledge of the scholarship that went into the creation of that canon, one cannot help but realize that, as rigorous as that scholarship might have been, it's not possible they got it all right.

"The Bible" that we all own, the one sitting in my bookshelf right over there, may contain apocrypha right now in the form of Revelation. It's a disputed book to this day, and nobody really knows who wrote it, what it really is/means, or whether it was truly inspired by God (assuming, arguendo, that any of them were).

Regarding the Peter "endorsement," it can only be valid if we accept that Simon Peter wrote II Peter. And we can't. There's too much static around that assumption. Paul was a lawyer, and was very good at arguing his stance, even going so far as to call out Peter and the surviving Disciples at one point, so he surely wasn't lacking in confidence. It's not impossible to think that he was simply blowing hot air about a lot of things.

 

[Landlord]

John who? That's a major problem here. We don't know John, the Disciple of Jesus, wrote Revelation. It's attributed to John, and it says it's written by John, but that doesn't mean it was. Modern scholarship tends to lean toward its writing as dating to the latter years of the first century - far too late to have been authored by a Disciple.

And we know that it was a common practice among apocryphal authors to name their works after Disciples to grant them legitimacy, the Gnostics being some of the better examples of these writings. The Gospel of Mary Magdalene, the Gospel of Judas, the Gospel of Philip... these are all ambiguously written, yet attributed to known people in the time of Jesus. Yet it's widely accepted by Christians that these are not canon, but apocrypha. Who's to say? Who truly knows? Canon, according to the Christian Bible, was set several centuries after the facts they describe. And while I have good knowledge of the scholarship that went into the creation of that canon, one cannot help but realize that, as rigorous as that scholarship might have been, it's not possible they got it all right.

"The Bible" that we all own, the one sitting in my bookshelf right over there, may contain apocrypha right now in the form of Revelation. It's a disputed book to this day, and nobody really knows who wrote it, what it really is/means, or whether it was truly inspired by God (assuming, arguendo, that any of them were).

Regarding the Peter "endorsement," it can only be valid if we accept that Simon Peter wrote II Peter. And we can't. There's too much static around that assumption. Paul was a lawyer, and was very good at arguing his stance, even going so far as to call out Peter and the surviving Disciples at one point, so he surely wasn't lacking in confidence. It's not impossible to think that he was simply blowing hot air about a lot of things.

 

[knapplc]

Good gif and all, but let's be clear - I've studied this decades longer than you. I'm not blowing smoke up your a$$ and if you think I am, post the rebuttal. Post the gif, too, because it's amusing. But provide a rebuttal, or concede the point(s).

 

[Landlord]

Good gif and all, but let's be clear - I've studied this decades longer than you. I'm not blowing smoke up your a$$ and if you think I am, post the rebuttal. Post the gif, too, because it's amusing. But provide a rebuttal, or concede the point(s).

I'm debating whether I want to :lol:

I realize and acknowledge you know a hell of a lot more than I do in terms of facts and information. I don't make any illusions about that, and there's not anyone I look up to more on this board. I think I could respond, but I've been really hesitant to dive terribly deep into all of these discussions lately, mainly just due to needing to focus my attention and energy in different places.