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.