Crikey! (no pun intended).
“Every time I try to get away they keep pulling me back!”
Don’t make me get medieval on your ass wit’ dat Aristotlean excluded middle shit. I’ll mess you three ways to Sunday.
In all this discussion also there is a very deafening silence on asking God to tell us now whether His really the author of the Bible.
He can do everything and He is very concerned with how we should relate to Him.
I think I ask God that question, but he’s not answering me. In the meantime, peoples have been each producing their own canonical collections, at least the Catholics and the Protestants.
Then also there are Jews and Muslims who also have their own analogical Bibles. Of course the Jews have the Old Testament – but they will I think tell us that their Bible (what’s the name or collection of their Bible?) is not exactly the Old Testament of Christians.
My point is this, since God is not answering such a very momentous question from me at least, then for myself I would draw a conclusion that He either does not care what people think about His authorship of the Bible, or He cares but He can’t do anything about it.
On the practical level, as peoples are actually doing, they just – those who maintain the divine authorship of the Bible – resort to the mechanism of inspiration; which does not solve the problem but compounds it further.
Do we not have as many writings from God on the basis of inspiration as they are founders of religion advocating His existence. For example, I think the Mormons have their own Bible in additon to the conventional(?) Bible of Protestants.
Please correct me in any point I make here that is mistaken.
Susma Rio Sep
It is written by God because it says it’s written by God. There! You got it!
True. If God wants us to behave in a certain way, why doesn’t He clarify that?
And there are many sects within both Catholic and Protestant traditions. Which is the correct one?
Plus Buddhists etc. Muslims also split into two major sects. And there doesn’t seem to be modern day support for the Egyptian, Norse or Roman Gods.
One minute you are God, the next a myth.
There’s also Christian Scientists and many more. I understand that Mormons believe G. Smith was visited by an Angel, and given Holy documents.
As you say, if there really is one God, why are his disciples in such confusion as to His true Word?
Clearly God doesn’t have an internet connection, or he would have posted here by now and answered all your questions.
I once had an argument with some fundamentalist Christians about whether a good God would cause the great flood. This probably went on for about half an hour, and of course we got nowhere. Thinking it over, I realized that the point we were arguing had practically nothing to do with the reasons each of us took the side we did. If I were going to get anywhere with them I would have to address the real reasons they were Christians and they would have to address the real reasons I was not. And it’s not even clear that we know ourselves what these reasons are.
I think most arguments between religious people and atheists center around problems with religion (such as my ten commandments argument), but I think the bigger difference between believers and non-believers has to do with the reasons FOR believing. I picture a pan balance with arguments FOR on one side and AGAINST on the other. We all see some stuff on the AGAINST side with atheists seeing somewhat more, but the believer sees something very heavy on the FOR side, while the atheist sees almost nothing. If we are to get anywhere, we should spend more time looking at the FOR side.
I can think of five general reasons for believing, of which I mentioned the first two in my last post: other people say so, wishful thinking, wanting to be good (this won’t stand on its own, but I think it is powerful), a profound experience, and creation (people think God helps explain creation). All but “profound experience” I think were influential in my own belief when I was young.
Thank you Polycarp for your thoughtful reply.
With respect to the law, I agree that no set of laws will cover every situation perfectly. My feeling is, however, that the particular set provided in the ten commandments is far from even being a good attempt. If God had really written them, I would be dazzled by their brilliance. Instead it seems that they could be greatly improved with hardly any effort. Indeed, “love your neighbor as yourself” seems much better than all ten of them put together.
As you point out, Polycarp, I don’t know you very well, although I should probably know you better since I’ve read quite a few of your posts over the last few years. I do think of you as smart, thoughtful, and compassionate, and a very positive example of a Christian. It seems in character that you would not seek vengeance on people who were mean to you. I included this because it entered into my own thinking as a kid and I suspect it must be true of many other people as well.
You mentioned “personal mystical experience” as a reason for your belief. In general I don’t find profound experiences require supernatural explanations, but not knowing the specifics of your experience, I can’t comment on your particular case. Perhaps you have explained this elsewhere. I’d be interested in knowing more about it.
As to your study of scholarship, I have never seen any that I have found persuasive to indicate God is real or the Bible is true. I hope you don’t take offense at this, but I can’t help being suspicious that you would not find your studies convincing if you didn’t already have convictions or desires about what the result would be. Are the studies the actual reason for your beliefs? I would be interested if you could point me to something you feel is persuasive.
I don’t know whether or not Jesus really existed. The only information I can get of Him comes from the Bible; are there any other sources?
People who knew the historical Jesus with a belief structure focusing on His acts are not very credible because of the obvious bias.
I forget who’s who; wasn’t one of the Gospel authors an Apostle himself? As for everyone who didn’t learn from Jesus personally, were the teachings passed on orally? Did Matthew, Mark, Luke and John pass on their teachings to others to write, or did they write the Gospels themselves? If it was been passed on through many people before being written, then a lot is lost or fabricated through the process (ever play a game called telephone?).
Why is the focus of all four books on Jesus’s ministry? What about the rest of the life of Jesus, how is the rest of His life unimportant compared to something like the Song of Solomon? Even if it wasn’t important in the telling of the Bible, is it credible at all, if ever used to create a biography of Jesus?
According to some Christian friends, the Bible seems to be more credible and unique; they say stuff like “how could all 66 books have been sequenced so perfectly?”, “all the prophecies made were fulfilled”, “divine origin”, etc…but I don’t buy it because 1) wasn’t the Bible assembled by human hands, even though the books were written by supposedly inspired authors? 2) I’ve seen a few of the prophecies made in the Bible, I’d say ambiguous wording makes them debatable and 3) how is it of divine origin only if the book itself told you so?
You know what? Good friends here, pro and anti divine authorship of Bible peoples: I have suddenly experienced an epiphany, a kind of mystical insight into myself.
Here it is: I don’t believe in the divine authorship of the Bible, simply put, without all the explanations and qualifications; and I don’t believe in God; and I don’t believe in Jesus Christ.
That the honest pure genuine authentic real truthful mind and heart of my faith in regard to Bible, God, Jesus Christ, and all these entities imply.
Now, listen to this: I am still in contact with God, every second of the day. I talk to Him and with Him, and I always listen to Him even though He does not talk back to me. Same with Jesus.
I don’t believe in the Bible, but I quote the Bible and I search the Bible for understanding human nature and behavior. And I respect people who take the Bible seriously as from God. However, I also approach these people with caution, because they might take the Bible seriously and do something like killing women and taking their babies out of their womb to dash against rocks.
You know, one day we can be religious without beliefs. That will be the day of post faith religions. It will be good for mankind, like post war diplomacy.
If anyone here has this same kind of epiphany, let me know.
No wonder I call myself a postgraduate Catholic.
Susma Rio Sep
Color me confused. Susma, could you please explain this apparent contradiction in your post?
FudgeNugget: I agree.
I got a little book from the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the primary purpose of which was to discredit evolution. However one chapter discussed the prophecies concerning the messiah that were supposedly fulfilled by Jesus. I took the trouble to read them. A few things worked, like the idea that the messiah would be from Bethlehem, but this could easily be explained by the writers of the gospels being familiar with the prophesy and simply including this assumed fact in the story of Jesus. What was more surprising was how miserably some of the prophecies failed. Isaiah 4 is presumably about the messiah, but in 4:4 he slays the wicked, in 4:10 he lives in glorious dwellings, and in 4:14 he seems to be involved in the Israelites swooping down on the Philistines and various other military victories. These seem totally false.
Another prophecy failure is in Mark 13:26-30 where Jesus says the second coming will be within the lifetime of the people present. It is amazing that people claim that prophesies are right on target when in fact they are not even close. I strongly recommend that when somebody claims a prophesy is true, that people actually read it in context.
The occasional prophesies that actually seem to work can be explained either by writers reporting the later events to conform to the prophesies, or modifying the prophesies to conform to the later events. While we can’t be sure that is what happened, it does provide a possibility that doesn’t require a supernatural explanation.
As to the ordering of the books, I am not aware of anything clever about it.
Hey…you may be on to something…did the later writers of the books of the Bible know about the ones before? Could any of the more religious translators have changed around a few things?
I think maybe the only way to really understand the Bible is to read all the original manuscripts in their original languages, instead of having all these different English versions.
As I understand it, the Old Testament books were written over a long span of time and scholars even consider many individual books to be pieced together from documents written by a variety of authors. I would assume almost all authors would have been aware of earlier scriptures, since they were part of the culture that maintained these as sacred texts.
Well, i’m back. Sorry about my abscence. My computer has been acting up. But before i get back, i’d like to say to susma, glee, and whoever else writes in the odd format to kindly CEASE AND DESIST! Though i have no problem with it, it annoys others, preventing your excellent words from being heard. Plus, it’s against the rules. Anyhoo…
…uh, the bible i’m using (an online bible at www.biblegateway.com for easy verification) doesn’t go up to 4:10. The KJV (used because it’s the oldest readily availible version) they have there says:
…i still don’t see a verse 10, or 14 for that matter.
…The next matter at hand is…
Yes, Susma, you may indeed ask. My psychological stance is one of curiousity, belief in God himself, doubt of the Bible, and discomfort with merely using religious folks for my resources… I think the question may have been worded incorrectly however… instead of
I should have asked simply: Which books belong in the Bible?
Thanks!
What do you mean by “belong?” 
If you want to know which books fit a specific set of criteria, you have to define what those criteria are.
Fudge Nugget: You don’t ask for much, do you!? I know of seminaries whose entire curriculums don’t answer all the questions of your May 6 posts! 
Seriously, I’ll try to deal with them on a step-by-step basis tonight and tomorrow as I have time – but there’ll be a lot of unanswered questions hanging fire as a result of what I say.
One quick thought before I start any such posts, though – I do not agree with the conception that the Bible is some special entity with some mystical accuracy beyond what it actually purports to be as a book like any other. I think God worked through its authors, but not in a “here, write this down” way – that’s more a Koranic conception, though it is the view of a fringe of fundamentalists. As a parallel, if you say “Write five paragraphs on the theme ‘Love all men’” to ten people, you’ll get ten very different essays as a result. The concept will be clothed and modified by their individual experiences, the cultural context they live in, their own philosophic priorities, and a host of other things. Something like that is what I believe about how the Bible was “inspired” – God-given concepts clothed in a lot of cultural trimming, to the point that the trimming often obscures the message – and then interpreted by people with their own priorities. Throw the third chapter of John to me, lel, Diogenes, Esprix, Franklin Graham, and Fred Phelps, and you’ll get quite different comments on it, I guarantee!
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Polycarp *
**Fudge Nugget: You don’t ask for much, do you!? I know of seminaries whose entire curriculums don’t answer all the questions of your May 6 posts! Seriously, I’ll try to deal with them on a step-by-step basis tonight and tomorrow as I have time – but there’ll be a lot of unanswered questions hanging fire as a result of what I say. **
I’ve been to church quite a few times before, although not recently because of school; part of the reason I went was to ask the Pastor questions, because it didn’t seem like any of the Christian guys there could answer my questions with anything satisfactory; the Pastor, although somewhat helpful, usually provided something vague and amibiguous that didn’t answer my question fully either.
I think we really have to ask what the Bible is supposed to be, and what it is, before asking who wrote it and how.
Sorry, I blew it. It was Isaiah 11:4, 11:10, and 11:14 that had these prophecies that seem incorrect, nothing in chapter 4.
Effectively, no. There are a few references to Him in secular writings during the following century, but they seem to be based on (usually a misunderstanding of) Christian teachings. E.g., Pliny, appointed governor of a province, is asking for advice on how to handle a case brought against some Christians, and summarizes his understanding of what they’re teaching. There are a bunch of miscellaneous writings not held to be anything in the same ballpark with accurate by devout Christians and scholars alike, such as the alleged letter of Jesus to Efrem, King of Edessa, and a whole bunch of “suppressed” gospels – which have all the historical validity of the website by the guy in Idaho who believes that the history of the 20th Century can be explained by the “fact” that FDR, Eisenhower, and Nixon were secretly Communists.
I understand your point, but beg to disagree. From the four writers, and allusions to Him in the other New Testament writings, one can abstract a picture of an individual. Each Gospel is, as you say, slanted – but it’s quite possible to extract factual information from a slanted source, if you take the slant into account and adjust for it.
As Diogenes mentioned elsewhere, the Jesus Seminar is trying to construct such a picture by intelligent textual analysis with any supernatural assumptions specifically set to one side – a “scientific” characterization of Jesus using only the same methodology one would apply to trying to figure out what sort of person Socrates or Cyrus really was. (The Socrates analogy is very apt, since what we know of him comes through two men who were very much enamored of him and his teachings.)
According to the traditional view, Matthew and John were among the Twelve: the Matthew Levi and John bar Zebedee mentioned in Matthew 9:9 and 4:21-22 and the parallel passages respectively. Mark is held to be the John Mark of Acts 12:25 and subsequent passages; Luke makes first-person references beginning in Acts 20 and is referred to by name in several of Paul’s letters.
A good summary of current scholarly thinking by a board member here with a degree in the subject can be found here, with questions and critique by me and others.
The modern scholarly assumption is that there was an oral tradition during the lifetimes of the eyewitnesses, and that the Gospels were only written to preserve that information as they began to die off.
Because the key point of the story, to Christians, is what Jesus taught and the climactic events of His life, the Atonement as acted out in the Crucifixion and Resurrection. And they’re not so much attempts to write “biography” as they are to teach what sort of person this Jesus whom we’ve taken as Lord in fact was, and what He taught us to do.
No argument. The Bible is unquestionably a book written by a large number of human beings and assembled by others, with yet others deciding which books “got in” and which didn’t. Draw a parallel to the U.S. Constitution – we can read the exact words of it, but what it means is expounded at length in a wide assortment of texts ranging from Supreme Court decisions to posts on this board by people interested in constitutional law. Likewise, for most believers, “God’s word” is conveyed through the Bible; it’s not equal to the Bible. But there are those who hold it to have been miraculously preserved from error and so on. If you don’t mind, not agreeing with them, I won’t attempt to discuss their theories at any length.
That’s pretty close to the truth – although remember that there was no doubt a period of time during which a given book was known and respected but not regarded as “Scripture” in anything like the modern sense.
There’s an extensive discussion somewhere on this board about what books are accepted by what groups. Suffice it to say that if you pick up a New English Bible with Apocrypha (that being a handy modern translation that has the full extent of most texts), you’ll find: (1) the Tanakh, the Jewish Bible, equivalent to the Old Testament of Protestant Christian Bibles; (2) the Apocrypha, accepted as “Second Class Scripture” by Anglicans and Methodists, considered part of the Old Testament by Orthodox; and including the “deuterocanonical works” of the Catholic Old Testament and a few additional books accepted by Orthodox but not by Catholics; (3) the New Testament, accepted by all Christians.
Argument as to why one canon or another should be accepted is still rife; there’s no GQ-type answer to "what books should be included.
[fixed link --Gaudere]
Sorry! The criteria would be basic, because I’m not presently interested in getting into a discussion of Catholicism over Protestant Branches over Eastern Orthodox, etc. The criteria that I can come up w/ at present are:
1.Must teach something.
2.Must not contradict the other books.
3.Must not curse the name of the Lord.
4.Must not be prophesy untruths.
Feel free to suggest others!