Bible Questions?

You wouldn't believe it if I showed it to you. You would just say that it "is 'he said to him who said to them who said to ..and all without the authority to say so, you don't even know who authored it".

What in the world are you talking about? I never said or even implied any of this.

Yep, Jesus, why did you think it was talking about someone else?

People are still being mislead from the truth, so how could it be "too late for them to be misled"?

Maybe so but I was the one you were asking and I don't believe Jesus is God part ii.

Yes he will always be the Son of God and will never be God just as you are the son of your father and will never be your father.

 

Ya, that's what I said. Here's why:

If you believe that it is the word of god I can respect that as a personal belief. (one that I may disagree with, but one that doesn't really need any baking up for it to be 'true')

If you try to claim that something is more valid than something else because there were eyewitnesses around when it was written, but that those eyewitnesses didn't necessarily have anything to with what was being written, then I think that you've got some strange ideas about what makes something 'trustworthy'.

Whatever dude, when someone is as defensive as you are it's a lot to expect of them to be able to view things from an outside perspective.

 

Yes I believe the Bible is the Word of God and I have many reasons for believing so.

I was asked if there were eyewitnesses around and I provided the name of one. It was stoney69 that said that John had not written anything, not I. I happen to believe that the eyewitness John did write the books attributed to him and thus his being an eyewitness would make a difference.

The Bible does say that apostasy would enter into the Christian congregation when the restraining influence was removed and many believe that restraining influence was the last of the Apostles, the eyewitness John. Thus there would be no restraining influence when no eyewitnesses are around, like there would be if eyewitnesses were present.

Thanks, I really enjoy when amateur psychologists try to tell me what my motives are, like they really have a clue.

And since you brought it up, talking about who people are and their motives, what are doing here in this thread, since you are in Sanctuary and do not appear to be a Christian and it also seems that your motive in this thread has nothing to do with the OP.

 

What motives? He just thinks you're defensive - hasn't postulated as to your motives.

 

Okay, I'll spell it out for you.

He is saying, "motivated" by my defensiveness, I'm unable to view things from an outside perspective.

Why? What are your motives in not posting about the OP?

 

Then, postulating the connection between Law and human rights, but after-all we realize the humility it deserves for knowing for certainty the justice by the deduced contention of applied Law. In such a case the Law should define the justice system which we could be utterly unfree about.

 

There may have been "eyewitnesses" to the the events in the Bible, but their testimony would never stand up in a court of law. In the case of the New Testament, the eyewitness testimony is hearsay, several witnesses removed from the actual events. The people who actually wrote down the gospels lived at least thirty-five to sixty-five years after Jesus' death, and who neither saw nor heard a thing he said. The attribution of the Gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John was done to lend credibility to the anonymous writings. They are far from disinterested sources, being ardent true believers like yourself. We don't have the original Hebrew and Greek texts of any of the books of the Bible, and the copies we do have all contain mistakes and/or alterations made by scribes to "clarify" the originals or to convey their own understandings of what the original "must" have meant. The versions of scripture that conflicted with the ultimately victorious proto-orthodox view were simply rejected from the Canon, and purged as heresy. The "inerrant" Bible is riddled with contradictions, most minor, some major. And as we've seen, the literal words of scripture can be used to justify slavery, mysogyny, sexism, homophobia, and genocide, and in the Watchtower version of it, anticatholicism. There is no scriptural athority at all for a literaist interpretation of the Bible. In a recent book defending Christianity against its atheist critics, Progressive Christian philosopher Eric Reitan argues that that, as a result, Biblical literalism is false religion, and a form of biblidolarty. That you continue to engage in elaborate rationalizations to make it work confirms the idea that if a person makes enough assumptions, he can justify anything, including a flat earth.

 

An eyewitness's testimony will stand in court.

No, both Matthew and John were apostles and were actual eyewitnesses of Jesus ministry.

The fact that, "the people who actually wrote down the gospels lived at least thirty-five to sixty-five years after Jesus' death", is meaningless. They were not born "thirty-five to sixty-five years after Jesus' death", they lived "thirty-five to sixty-five years after Jesus' death" which would not exclude them from being eyewitnesses to what had happened.

As for who "actually wrote" the gospels, there is no reason to believe that those who wrote the books of the Bible are anyone other than those it was attributed to.

It was attributed to them mainly because they wrote them.

True but because of that they are more interested in being truthful, than just making their religion look good.

You must be joking, the Scribes did not make alterations to the text, their job was to copy not change.

Yeah, that's why there so many differences found between the dead sea scrolls and what we have today.

And that is why you were so effective in showing "Bible is riddled with contradictions, most minor, some major" in the thread on Bible contradictions.

Only if they are taken out of context, which I must admit you're pretty good at.

Personally, I've never said that the whole Bible should be taken literally, some is literal, some is not and some is both.

Of course we should take Eric Reitan's word for it, who ever he is, personally I'll just take God's word for it.

Well it seems to work for you.

 

once you bring the bible into contex it can be read and understood in too many different ways

 

Philippians 1:
18 But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice

??

 

The Gospel of Matthew:

"The unknown author, whom we shall continue to call Matthew for the sake of convenience, drew no only up the Gospel according to Mark but upon a large body of material (principally, sayings of Jesus) not found in Mk that corresponds, sometimes exactly, to material found also in the Gospel according to Luke. (The New American Bible, ISBN: 978-0-529-06484-4, Page 1008)"

"As for the place where the gospel was composed, a plausible suggestion is that it was Antioch, the capital of the Roman province of Syria. (The New American Bible, ISBN: 978-0-529-06484-4, Page 1009)"

The Gospel of Mark:

"Although the book is anonymous, apart from the ancient heading "According to Mark" in manuscripts, it has traditionally been assigned to John Mark, in whose mother's house (at Jerusalem) Christians assembled. (The New American Bible, ISBN: 978-0-529-06484-4, Page 1064)"

"Although there is no direct internal evidence of authorship, it was the unanimous testimony of the early church that this Gospel was written by John Mark. (From the NIV Bible Commentary [1], page 1488)"

The Gospel of Luke:

"The identification of Luke as the author is primarily based on the "we" passages in Acts (beginning in Acts 16:10), which indicate that Luke was associated with Paul in his ministry and wrote down the account of his activities. (The Amplified Bible, Page 1153)"

"Although the author does not name himself, evidence outside the Scriptures and inferences from the book itself lead to the conclusion that the author was Luke. (From the NIV Bible Commentary [1], page 1643)"

The Gospel of John:

"Many scholars of the past two centuries have denied that John wrote this book, partly because of their belief that the author fabricated many details such as the miracles and the discourses of Jesus. (The Holman Illustrated Study Bible, ISBN: 978-1-58640-275-4, Gospel of John, Page1540)"

"Critical Analysis makes it difficult to accept the idea that the gospel as it now stands was written by one person. (The New American Bible, ISBN: 978-0-529-06484-4, Page 1136)"

"Within the gospel itself there are also some inconsistencies. (The New American Bible, ISBN: 978-0-529-06484-4, Page 1136)"

"To solve these problems, scholars have proposed various rearrangements that would produce a smoother order. However, most have come to the conclusion that the inconsistencies were probably produced by subsequent editing in which homogeneous materials were added to a shorter original. (The New American Bible, ISBN: 978-0-529-06484-4, Page 1136)"

"Other difficulties for any theory of eyewitness authorship of the gospel in its present form are presented by its highly developed theology and by certain elements of its literary style. (The New American Bible, ISBN: 978-0-529-06484-4, Page 1136)"

"The gospel contains many details about Jesus not found in the synoptic gospels. (The New American Bible, ISBN: 978-0-529-06484-4, Page 1136)"

"The final editing of the gospel and arrangement in its present form probably dates from between A.D. 90 and 100. Traditionally, Ephesus has been favored as the place of composition, though many support a location in Syria, perhaps the city of Antioch, while some have suggested other places, including Alexandria. (The New American Bible, ISBN: 978-0-529-06484-4, Page 1136)"

 

were the names of Jehovah and Jesus Christ copied or changed (translated) ?

 

and for the amount of times we read owb's "Bible is word of God", why should there be a need for the following text ..?

Deut 4:2 Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you.

Jeremiah 8:
8 " 'How can you say, "We are wise,
for we have the law of the LORD,"
when actually the lying pen of the scribes
has handled it falsely?

 

no it won't

 

Context, Context.

 

No one questioned who wrote the Books of the Bible until hundreds of years after the last eyewitness, that could dis agree with them had died.

 

The scribes were copyists and so did not change anything, not even translating.

 

Why not?

 

Really? You must live in Dubai.

 

Not if it's fourth hand hearsay.

I have no doubt that Matthew and John were apostles and were actual eyewitnesses of Jesus' ministry. I just don't know they wrote the Gospels according to to Matthew and John (many scholars agree) and therefore we don't know for sure what they witnessed.

You say. Many scholars don't agree. Are you saying that in a court of law a person could claim to be an eyewitness and if there's "no reason to beileve" (s)he wasn't, well take the person's word?

That may have been their job, but it's not what they did, at least as far as the Old Testament is concerned. We have thousands of copes in Greek, and many contain mistakes. For example, some versus (Luke 22:45) say that Jesus sweated great drops of blood before his arrest. Some leave it out. In our earliest manuscripts, when Jesus says that the bread is his body and the wine is his blood, the words "for you" are left out. In later versions they are put in, making them conform to Mark and Matthew. Does this matter? Some think it does. The story of the adulterous woman in John,and the story that Jesus' disciples would be able to handle deadly snakes and drink poison appears in some versions of Mark and not others. There's also the problem of pseudographhy, like 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus.

I wasn't aware that the Dead Sea Scrolls contained the New Testament.

We could go on and on. I think your interpretations stretch the bounds of plausibility.

Until you can tell me what the "context" is, I think you have a weak case.

Eric Reitan is a Christian philosohy professor who presents his ideas in a recent book. I don't "take his word for it", so why should you. Instead, I read his arguments, which seem to be well-reasoned and compelling.