Protestantism

» Brian Tubbs - Answering Migisi

In response to Does the Bible prove the Bible? posted by Migisi:

My original blog post: "#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?

You either deliberately misunderstanding me to make my argument LOOK ridiculous or you just don't "get" what I'm saying. My argument is that it's valid to show that the Bible makes the claim of divine inspiration for itself. The value in doing so is that it establishes divine inspiration as a legitimate Christian doctrine, and therefore worthy of preaching and defense. It does NOT - repeat NOT! - settle the issue for skeptics, unbelievers, doubters, etc. And I NEVER said it did or should!!!!

~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?

First, please tell me what FIRST century Christian documents were excluded. Second, bishops didn't just sit around and vote on what texts would be in the "canon." In terms of the New Testament, the congregations were ALREADY actively circulating the books that would later be formally canonized LONG BEFORE they were formally canonized.

~Independent~ eyewitnesses, who've never heard, read, or copied the other witnesses' account of the event, would certainly be affirming.

This is much too high a standard. I will grant that purely independent eyewitnesses are PERHAPS preferable, but not even our courts hold this high of standard that you've put out there. Again, this is radical in the extreme.

However, that's not the case with the gospel writers.

I would remind you that the literary interdependence theories of the Gospels have NEVER been proven. The vast majority agree that there was a Q source of some kind which informed the Gospel of Mark. And that the Gospel of Mark then influenced the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. But that's as far as the consensus goes. And that consensus, even if fully accepted, does not automatically disqualify traditional attribution nor does it discredit the Gospels themselves.

What if there are no collaborating witnesses - say, to what Josephus and Tacitus allegedly reported? We should discount them, yes?

Historians would say "NO." Historians don't necessarily require 2 or 3 ancient eyewitnesses or sources to verify historical events. MUCH of our understanding of ancient history is based on single sources sometimes compiled HUNDREDS of years AFTER the events or peoples being covered. Yet historians would still say that, in spite of this, there's MUCH we can "KNOW" about those events and peoples. Thankfully, historians aren't as cynical as you are.

» pink101 - Misunderstanding

In response to Misunderstanding posted by BrianTubbs:
.
My point is that the Bible passes this test [of internal coherence--integrity].
.
So YOU say, Brian. But, many people point out that such is not the case and that there are many points where the Bible is in disagreement with itself.
.
But, that's a tangent that can take us far afield.
/

-- posted by pink101

» paper_turtle - Misunderstanding

In response to Misunderstanding posted by BrianTubbs:

.
Brian wrote:
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.
.
Other scripture could also make such a claim--so could oral spiritual traditions such as Native American and Australian Aboriginal.
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle

» HeadZenCards - Drano Challenge

In response to Answering Migisi posted by BrianTubbs:

You said that your argument is that it's valid to show that the Bible makes the claim of divine inspiration for itself.

You claim that the value in doing so is that it establishes divine inspiration as a legitimate Christian doctrine, and therefore worthy of preaching and defense.

The bible claims to be divine so it establishes divine inspiration. This is the worst kind of circular reasoning. You are screwing yourself into the dust here.

You muddy the waters (thankfully) by saying that it does NOT - repeat NOT! - settle the issue for skeptics, unbelievers, doubters, etc. And you NEVER said it did or should!!!!

The allegedly resurrected Jesus said (Mark 16:15):

Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

16:19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.

16:20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

I believed and was baptized the Sunday before JFK was assassinated. However, Mark was smart enough to have his Jesus say that signs shall follow them that believe. Alas, the absence of these miracles proves that I am damned.

The drano challenge is still open to those who think that they believe. Jesus said believers can drink any deadly thing but the grand prize of the drano challenge is still instant death for both believers and non-believers, thus proving that Jesus as written was a liar.

To whom are Christians defending the bible and preaching about the bible? Jesus as written said to EVERY creature. However, you and Jesus as written are dead wrong when you say that the bible is worthy of preaching and defense, unless you take the drano challenge.

-- posted by HeadZenCards

» pink101 - Drano Challenge

In response to Drano Challenge posted by HeadZenCards:
.
You're mean.
.
:)
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - Answering Migisi

In response to Answering Migisi posted by BrianTubbs:
.
You either deliberately misunderstanding me to make my argument LOOK ridiculous or you just don't "get" what I'm saying.
.
Which do you think?
.
My argument is that it's valid to show that the Bible makes the claim of divine inspiration for itself.
.
Yes, it makes that ~~claim~~, and I claimed to be the Queen. Does that make either claim true?
.
The value in doing so is that it establishes divine inspiration as a legitimate Christian doctrine, and therefore worthy of preaching and defense.
.
How can merely claiming something - which can't be proved -be 'legitimate' (neither spurious nor false), and worthy of defense?
.
It does NOT - repeat NOT! - settle the issue for skeptics, unbelievers, doubters, etc. And I NEVER said it did or should!!!!
.
We agree. However, your article implies that it should settle it.
.
First, please tell me what FIRST century Christian documents were excluded.
.
I asked YOU first.
.
Second, bishops didn't just sit around and vote on what texts would be in the "canon."
.
How do YOU think they created the bible?
.
In terms of the New Testament, the congregations were ALREADY actively circulating the books that would later be formally canonized LONG BEFORE they were formally canonized.
.
Did they accept and canonize EVERY book that had been circulated? No, they chose only certain writings, and declared and discarded others as 'heretical'.
.
I will grant that purely independent eyewitnesses are PERHAPS preferable, but not even our courts hold this high of standard that you've put out there. Again, this is radical in the extreme..
.
Even in traffic accidents, eyewitnesses are interviewed separately, and their statements are not shared with other eyewitnesses.
.
I would remind you that the literary interdependence theories of the Gospels have NEVER been proven.
.
Nor have they been disproven.
.
The vast majority agree that there was a Q source of some kind which informed the Gospel of Mark.
.
Where is this Q source 'of some kind'? Hmm, maybe in a jug in a cave somewhere with the other 1st century heretical documents the bishops rejected?
.
And that the Gospel of Mark then influenced the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.
.
As I said previously - 'three (the Synoptics) rewritten accounts based on one story'. Actually, that be ~two~ rewrites (Matt and Luke) of Mark's story. My mistake.
.
But that's as far as the consensus goes. And that consensus, even if fully accepted, does not automatically disqualify traditional attribution nor does it discredit the Gospels themselves.
.
I guess I do have a higher standard for credibility than most Christians.
.
MUCH of our understanding of ancient history is based on single sources sometimes compiled HUNDREDS of years AFTER the events or peoples being covered.
.
And you find this credible?
.
Yet historians would still say that, in spite of this, there's MUCH we can "KNOW" about those events and peoples. Thankfully, historians aren't as cynical as you are.
.
Well, maybe they ought to be far more cynical. But if they did question and demand more provable and factual corraboration, they'd miss their book publishing deadlines, wouldn't they. (wink) How many discrepancies, contradictions, and outright lies found in history books would it take for you to become a cynic? Folks who've actually lived through events (now considered 'historical') DO notice when the truth about that event is being manipulated. But that's another issue.

-- posted by Migisi

» Migisi - Drano Challenge

In response to Drano Challenge posted by HeadZenCards:

.
Jesus said believers can drink any deadly thing
.
My believing sister is living proof. She drinks her own coffee. Hee hee.

-- posted by Migisi

» pink101 - Answering Migisi

In response to Answering Migisi posted by Migisi:
.
But that's another issue.
.
Actually, it probably IS the issue.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Twice__Pardoned - My writing

Imagine:

I write down 2+2=4
You read it.
You are not sure if it's true.
You study it.
You believe it's true.
But how would you know?

Evidential truth. An overwhelming amount of evidence to show that the text I am writing not only makes sense but 'adds' up. By that standard we can determine whether it's likely.

Still whether or not we believe it, one thing remains... it's either true or it's false.

-- posted by Twice__Pardoned

» HeadZenCards - My writing

In response to My writing posted by Twice__Pardoned:

It would depend on what you meant by "2" and "4". If we agreed that two was " and four was "" we can agree that " in addition to " is the same thing as "".

This is the problem when discussing God. One person means " by God and another means "" and yet another means "?"

Before we define an idea, we cannot discuss whether some idea is true or false.

-- posted by HeadZenCards