Protestantism

» paper_turtle - Does the Bible prove the Bible?

.
Sorry, I still disagree. If this were any other book than the Bible, would you make such a claim?
.
With all due respect to Mormons and Mormonism, do you believe the Book of Mormon is divinely inspired scripture in the same sense as the Bible? It says it is, so it must be, right?
.
If I wrote a book on flying saucers as a source of spiritual guidance, claiming that God had dictated the book to me, would this make it scripture? There are a lot of people who believe in flying saucers, and many prople claim to have seen them, or even been in contact with aliens. All of these people could attest to the validity of what I was claiming, but does this prove the truth of what I have said?
.
The Bible is authoritative to those who have faith. The words of the Bible are accepted as true by those who believe in God. To try to "prove" the Bible to one who does not have faith, does not believe, seems like an exercise in futility to me.
.
If anyone converts from not believing to believing, it is through the grace of God, not any human trying to prove something.
.
We convert--if we do at all--not by demanding something impissible, but by being something irresistible. (May Sarton)
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle

» pink101 - Does the Bible prove the Bible?

In response to Does the Bible prove the Bible? posted by paper_turtle:
.
Trumping.
.
The people who developed the game of Bridge built it around the idea of a trump card.
.
There are several card games in which trump is central.
.
The Bible trumps the Book of Mormon as well as all other books, all questions, all subjects, and ever issue.
.
Think of that! A book a person can possess with which they can win every argument they ever enter. You get to rule the world if you belong to a team that holds the trump of all trumps. George Bush holds that trump card.
.
:)
.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - Does the Bible prove the Bible?

In response to Does the Bible prove the Bible? posted by paper_turtle:
.
I this thread in response to the article found here? http://protestantism.suite101.com/blog.c...
.
#1 -- So, it IS valid to cite biblical references to prove that the Bible does proclaim itself to be the Word of God.
.
I proclaim here in writing that I am the Queen of the World. My own proclamation is valid proof that I am. What? You don't believe me?
.
endorsed by the overwhelming majority of Christian congregations... texts were confirmed in the official Christian "canon
.
~Certain~ texts endorsed and officially confirmed by a majority vote of church bishops. What happened to the first-century ancient writings which didn't make the doctrinal cut? Hidden in a jug in a cave? Were they not also "narratives and letters written by followers of Jesus Christ OR followers of the followers of Jesus Christ."?
.
#2 -- If you have one witness to an event, you absolutely, positively CAN and SHOULD use another witness (or another two or three witnesses) to help bolster the first witness' story.
.
~Independent~ eyewitnesses, who've never heard, read, or copied the other witnesses' account of the event, would certainly be affirming. However, that's not the case with the gospel writers. What if there are no collaborating witnesses - say, to what Josephus and Tacitus allegedly reported? We should discount them, yes?
.
#3 -- We have four very clear, ancient accounts of Jesus' public ministry.
.
What you have are three (the Synoptics) rewritten accounts based on one story, but containing a plethora of contradictions. Not 'very clear', IMO. That's entirely explainable. When a story is ~retold~ and ~repeated~ from one person to the next, the details change. And it also depends on which bible 'version' is used. There's even strong suggestion that one or more were written by somebody other the 'eyewitness' apostles named. The fact that there are three is not compelling evidence. The OT has story doublets and triplets too. Think Genesis 1 and 2.
.

-- posted by Migisi

» Brian Tubbs - Misunderstanding

I think Migisi gets at least PART of what I'm saying, but I think Pink and PaperTurtle do not. That's probably more my fault than theirs. Whatever the case may be, there IS a major misunderstanding here.

One of the standards of identifying truth is internal coherence. If you all are students of philosophy, you know what I'm talking about. This is off the top of my head late at night, so I may not be using the right lingo or explaining it the best. Nevertheless, one standard of determining truthfulness is internal coherence.

In the case of the Bible, the internal coherence standard would demand that the Bible make a consistent and internally logical claim of divine inspiration. If it did not, then there'd be NO point in someone today asserting that the Bible is divinely inspired.

My point is that the Bible passes this test. BUT....I am NOT - repeat NOT - as in NOT! - saying that this settles the issue!

Okay????? Do you understand????