Protestantism

» 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