What is the position of the Bible in our faith? (HaShem, believers)

[Michael Way]

Originally Posted by tithon

Hi Mike555,

Thank you again for your very scholarly response. I have read Reinventing Jesus and I can refute a lot of what they say. I like writers from Dallas Theological Seminary even though they tend to be frightfully fundamentalist and flawed. But let me get back to this thread or you might think I am an old grandfather. Hehe.




You wrote this:

First, all the Gospels and Acts are anonymous and many of the named texts are pseudepigraphical. It is totally wrong to say the Gospels are not anonymous. The names were appended by the church by Holy Tradition. No scholar will ever say that the Gospels came with the names of the supposed writers in the original manuscripts. I don't know where you get it from but you are totally wrong.

You may not agree with the pseudepigraphical nature of many of the texts but it's surely wrong to say that the Gospels weren't anonymous?

I never said that the four Gospels weren't anonymous. That is formally anonymous. That is, the names of the writers weren't in the body of the text. But there is no reason to believe that the early church didn't know who the writers of the Gospels were since the attestation of the early church is that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were the writers. And as I said in the other thread, if the church just picked certain names to give authority to the Gospels then they could have made better choices than Mark or Matthew. Since Mark got his information for the Gospel from Peter, then why not use the name of Peter instead of Mark since Peter was an apostle while Mark wasn't? And since Matthew had been a tax collector (tax collectors were regarded as traitors by the Jews), the church could have chosen one of the other apostles to attach to the Gospel. But they didn't, and that the church states that Mark and Matthew wrote those Gospels has the ring of truth to it.

It is a huge mistake to think that the early church had a fixed list of criteria for canonicity. What you call criteria are in fact general guidelines which are not adhered to at all.

The criteria are the guidelines that the early Church used. It's already been shown from statements in the Muratorian Canon that the reason the Shepherd of Hermas couldn't be a part of the NT canon was that it was written to late. And as you yourself acknowledged, documents which did not adhere to orthodox teaching were excluded from the canon.

As Lee Martin McDonald stated in his book The Biblical Canon,

It is generally acknowledged that the church used several criteria in order to determine the contents of its NT. No surviving evidence, however, suggests that all churches used the same criteria in selecting their sacred collections. Likewise, no evidence suggests that each separate criterion weighed equally with others in deliberations about canon.

The Biblical Canon, It's Origin, Transmission, and Authority, McDonald, p. 405

McDonald then lists the criteria as Apostolicity, Orthodoxy, Antiquity, Use, Adaptability, and Inspiration. He goes into detail about each of these.

You rightly pointed out Hebrews as totally anonymous and yet it is in the list. It's wrong to say it was written in the lifetime of the Apostles. Nobody knows that.

Hebrews is in the NT canon because it meets the criteria which the church used to recognize the authority of a document.

Concerning the dating of Hebrews to within the lifetime of the apostles, which is during the 1st century, as D. A. Carson has pointed out, Clement of Rome refers to Hebrews 1 in his epistle to the Corinthians. And Clement died somewhere around the year AD 100. Most scholars date his epistle to AD 96. This means that the epistle of Hebrews had to have been written during the first century. Quoting Carson,

Although some of the quotations of Hebrews in 1 Clement are disputed, it is exceedingly difficult to dismiss the repeated references to Hebrews 1 in 1 Clement 36:1-6. The majority of scholars date 1 Clement to A.D. 96. If accepted, this would put a terminus ad quem on the date of Hebrews. It must be admitted, however, that the primary reason for dating 1 Clement so precisely is that some words from the first chapter---''the sudden and repeated misfortunes and calamities which have befallen us''---refer to persecution of Christians under the Emperor Domitian. Evidence for such persecution is slight (see discussion under ''Date'' in chap. 24). If it is discounted, the range of possibility dates for 1 Clement is opened up from about 70 to about 140, with several mediating positions. The very late dates are unlikely, since 1 Clement is cited as an authoritative source by Clement of Alexandria, and the 96 date still seems most plausible; but it is important to recognize the limits of our knowledge.

An Introduction to the New Testament, D. A. Carson & Douglas J. Moo, p. 605

After having much more to say on the matter of dating Hebrews, Carson closes on the subject of dating, by saying,

Thus, although one cannot decisively rule out any date between about A.D 60 and 100, the preponderance of evidence favors a date before 70.

An Introduction to the New Testament, D. A. Carson & Douglas J. Moo, p. 608.

1 Clement references Hebrews 1 as follows;

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF CLEMENT TO THE CORINTHIANS

1Clem 36:1
This is the way, dearly beloved, wherein we found our salvation,
even Jesus Christ the High priest of our offerings, the Guardian and
Helper of our weakness.

1Clem 36:2
Through Him let us look steadfastly unto the heights of the heavens;
through Him we behold as in a mirror His faultless and most excellent
visage; through Him the eyes of our hearts were opened; through Him
our foolish and darkened mind springeth up unto the light; through
Him the Master willed that we should taste of the immortal knowledge
Who being the brightness of His majesty is so much greater than
angels, as He hath inherited a more excellent name.

1Clem 36:3
For so it is written Who maketh His angels spirits and His
ministers aflame of fire

1Clem 36:4
but of His Son the Master said thus, Thou art My Son, I this day
have begotten thee. Ask of Me, and I will give Thee the Gentiles
for Thine inheritance, and the ends of the earth for Thy
possession.

1Clem 36:5
And again He saith unto Him Sit Thou on My right hand, until I make
Thine enemies a footstool for Thy feet.

1Clem 36:6
Who then are these enemies? They that are wicked and resist His
will. [Bolding mine]

First Clement: Clement of Rome

The bolded quotes refer to Hebrews 1.

One thing we have to be careful about when we say a particular book was quoted by so-and-so in the 2nd century is this - most of the time, such 'quotation' isn't really a quotation. There is just some similarity in a phrase and scholars (in the height of their devotion) insist that it must be a quotation of a particular biblical book. Hebrews was never taken to be scripture at all until around AD 170 when an editor from Alexandria included it as a Pauline corpus by mistake. It then became hugely authoritative. This is the best example of a book that got into our sacred Canon by MISTAKE!!!

Refer to the above comments, where Clement of Rome refers to Hebrews 1.

To illustrate what I mean by 'quotation' in the preceding paragraph, scholars, in an attempt to show the antiquity of Hebrews, talked about how it was quoted by some of the early church fathers. One of them is Justin Martyr who in about AD 160 referred to our Lord Jesus as an apostle. Because nobody else ever did that except the writer of Hebrews, he is taken to have quoted Hebrews. (See page 394, McDonald). I will mention Hebrews again later.

Again, refer to the section above.

All the church did was to see that the doctrines in the book is largely correct and they may just take it in. Of greater consideration is the acceptability of the book by the parishioners. I've read many books on the canon of Scriptures including FF Bruce's The Canon of Scripture and Bruce Metzger's definitive book. What I find disappointing in FF Bruce, a scholar I have the highest regard for, is that when he wrote books for lay people such as 'Is the New Testament Reliable?' he gave a resounding YES as the conclusion for these books. However in his more scholastic The Canon of Scripture, he is completely different.

Of course a book which is written for the popular audience is not going to go into the same depth as a more scholarly book does. I have the books. Let's see what Bruce says in The Canon of Scripture.

In the canon of scripture we have the foundation documents of Christianity, the charter of the church, the title-deeds of faith. For no other literature can such a claim be made. And when the claim is made, it is made not merely for a collection of ancient writings. In the words of scripture the voice of the Spirit of God continues to be heard. Repeatedly new spiritual movements have been launched by the rediscovery of the living power which resides in the canon of scripture---living power which strengthens and liberates.[Bolding mine]

The Canon of Scripture, F. F. Bruce, p. 283

Bruce had no doubts about the canon. In the canon, says Bruce, the voice of the Spirit of God continues to be heard.

The uncertainty of the Canon became apparent to me after I had read both his book and Metzger's . It was also FF Bruce who first caused the scales to fall from my eyes when he showed how a lot of the NT statements of fulfilment of prophecies came from the badly translated Septuagint rather than the 'real' word of God, the Hebrew Scriptures.

The Septuagint was the Bible of the early church and was quoted by the apostles. In certain cases the Septuagint agrees with the Dead Sea Scrolls against the Tanach. Many of the quotations in the New Testament are from the Septuagint.

It's funny that FF Bruce, an evangelical scholar, was the one who introduced me to how wrong the Bible really is and of course my desire to know more led me to other honest scholars such as Bart Ehrman and Elaine Pagels.

Bruce did no such thing. The very purpose of his book, The New Testament Documents, are They Reliable? is to show that they are.

Next, there are many other books that are not written by the apostles or their followers but are forgeries but the church missed out on these. I will come to these later.

You then continued with this:


Showing instances where the church condemned books as forgeries only tells us that the church would of course remove books that are known to be forgeries. The story of Seriapon is something I have quoted earlier in this thread. In fact it only goes to show how uncertain and unreliable the canon is. Let me explain.



As late as AD 200, the church could not even tell how many Gospels there were. Obviously, the situation was simply anything goes. If you say you have the Gospel of Andrew, fine, I'm ok with it. And if another church claims to have the Gospel of James, I'll encourage you to read it. That's precisely what happened in AD 200. Mind you, 200 years after Jesus!!!!! Bishop Seriapon went his merry way whistling a cheerful tune after he learnt that a particular town was guided by the Gospel of Peter. What your book didn't explain is how he 'knew' it wasn't written by Peter. Someone told him when he was back in his bishopric sipping wine that the gospel had some heretical teachings. He looked at it and he banned the book.

The canon is neither uncertain nor unreliable. The vast majority of the NT documents were accepted as canonical early on. The few documents for which there was doubt eventually were recognized as canonical precisely because, and after much thought was given to the matter. No one person decided which books were canonical. There was a period in which some in the church thought that certain documents should or shouldn't be a part of the canon. But eventually, even though there was still doubt among some, the church overall accepted the 27 books of the New Testament that we have today.

Our reaction should not be 'Thank God the book was excluded'. Rather, we should be alarmed. It shows how lax the church was in accepting books that aren't clearly heretical. What if the Gospel of Peter didn't contain outright heresies? We may very well have a fifth Gospel today. You may say it doesn't matter because if it's not outrageously heretical, it's still orthodox doctrines that we will have. But that's not true.

The church was not lax about it. And the Gospel of Peter IS outrageously heretical. A talking cross that follows three men out of Jesus' tomb, the heads of two of the men reaching into heaven is outrageously heretical.

10 When therefore those soldiers saw it, they awakened the centurion and the elders; for they too were hard by keeping guard. And, as they declared what things they had seen, again they see three men come forth from the tomb, and two of them supporting one, and a cross following them: and of the two the head reached unto the heaven, but the head of him that was led by them overpassed the heavens. And they heard a voice from the heavens, saying, Thou hast preached to them that sleep. And a response was heard from the cross, Yea.

The Gospel of Peter

The Gospel of Peter fails on that basis alone, not to mention it's late date after the time of the apostles. And then there's the issue of it being a forgery. It claimed to have been written by Peter, but was not. Examples have already been given of the church rejecting pseudepigrapha.

We have four Gospels but they are not all the same. There are huge differences. The doctrine of High Christology only appears in John's Gospel. If we were only left with the Synoptic Gospels, the position of Jesus in the Holy Trinity would be anyone's guess. So, each book brings with it some changes to doctrine. If Peter's Gospel had not contained outright heresies that are strong enough to shock Seriapon, it would have been accepted into our canon. This story actually tells us how dicey everything was in those days. Nobody even knew how many Gospels there were. We must always transport ourselves to a time when books were scarce. People didn't have the entire set of Gospels. Nobody really knew much. They didn't have wikipedia in those days.

Of course the four Gospels were not all the same. They weren't meant to be. Each Gospel writer emphasized certain things about Jesus.

And the early church never accepted any other than the four Gospels. Again, according to Bruce, the four Gospels were brought together as a corpus very early.

At a very early date it appears that the four Gospels were united in one collection. They must have been brought together very soon after the writing of the Gospel according to John.

The New Testament Documents, Bruce, p. 18

I am not saying the church acted in bad faith. By no means. The church would have weeded out any book that was pseudepigraphical. But it could only do so if it knew!!! I'm saying there were many books that escaped the net and entered our canon even though they were pseudepigraphical.

That's your opinion. There are scholars who agree with you, and scholars who don't.

How can we tell? One way is to look at when these books became known. I'm sure you know about Marcion so I won't explain. Marcion's list of books is interesting to us because it tells us a lot about whether the books were around in his time. Marcion was a St Paul devotee in a sense. He only wanted St Paul's epistles. But his list of books does not include Hebrews and some of the well-known pseudepigraphical works falsely attributed to St Paul. (See McDonald p 325).

That some books don't appear in certain canon lists doesn't mean that the books weren't around at the time. It only means that the author of the list didn't consider the excluded book or books as belonging in the canon. I've already shown that the book of Hebrews was written during the first century. See above.

And I accept all of the books which are attributed to Paul as authentic, as does F. F. Bruce.

The dates of the thirteen Pauline Epistles can be fixed partly by internal and partly by external evidence. The day has passed when the authenticity of these letters could be denied wholesale. There are some writers today who would reject Ephesians; fewer still would reject 2 Thessalonians; more would deny that the Pastoral Epistles (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus) came in their present form from the hand of Paul. I accept them all as Pauline...

The New Testament Documents, Bruce, p.8

We already know from the story of Seriapon how the church works when it comes to a book. Read it and see if it's ok. If it is, pass it. If it's not, it's a forgery.

The other problem I have with the canon is some books just disappeared. Eg St Paul in the word of God (we accept it in our canon) commands us to read his epistle to the Laodiceans. But it's one biblical command we can't fulfil because it ain't around. The Epistle to the Laodiceans was condemned as heretical and forged by the early church. But we also know that Marcion included it in his list of Pauline books, which means it it very old. Certainly older than Hebrews and 1 & 2 Tim and other pseudepigraphical books of Paul.

All I want to say is that if we study the canon of Scriptures, we are opening a can of deadly worms. This is why FF Bruce even has a section at the end of his book as to whether the canon should be changed. He of course concludes that it shouldn't but not because it's wonderfully correct but it would cause too much upheaval to the people of faith.

You're referring to pages 278-9 of The Canon of Scripture where Bruce addresses the question raised by some concerning if a lost document from the apostolic age were to be discovered, should it be included in the canon. His reply is that unless and until such a discovery is made, it is useless to speculate.

Now I will address what you have said about the divinity of our Lord. You wrote this:



Forget semantics. I don't care about terminology. I'm only concerned about doctrines.

Then pay attention to what I wrote in that section of post #111.

Why did you pick John's Gospel and not the Synoptic Gospels when we are talking about the divinity of Jesus? Because John's Gospel is the latest Gospel to be written, certainly no earlier than AD 90 but probably much later than that. Some scholars explain that this was written after all the apostles had died, even John himself.

Because John's Gospel is the one which emphasizes the deity of Jesus. Apart from the Gospels, Paul affirms the deity of Jesus in Philippians 2:5-6. Philippians was written sometime between AD 59-62 depending on whether Paul wrote it during his time under guard in Rome or if he wrote it from Caesarea. If he wrote it at Ephesus or Corinth it could have been written even earlier. Therefore, the deity of Jesus is not a later legend or tradition of the church.

Notice that John is the only Gospel that did not have any of the promises Jesus made about returning in the lifetimes of his apostles? John is also the only Gospel that had Jesus proclaiming his divinity.

Jesus never said that he was going to return within the lifetime of the apostles and left open the possibility that it could be a very long time before he returns. See Acts 1:6-7.

John's Gospel is not the only one in which Jesus demonstrates his deity. The synoptics don't emphasize his deity as John does, but they do show Jesus demonstrating his deity by some of his miracles such as for example, stilling the storm which goes back to the Lord stilling the storm in the Old Testament. Compare Matthew 8:23-27, Mark 4:35-41, and Luke 8:22-25 with Psalm 107:23

Scholars say that John's Gospel teaches High Christology. It talks of a preexistent Jesus with divine powers. I will show that Paul did not have such a view of Jesus.

The Philippians quotation in fact tells us all we need to know about Paul's Christology. Scholars always say that a passage is difficult whenever the passage tells us that Paul's doctrine is what would be heretical today. They always do that, which is why I don't trust these dishonest scholars. In Paul's view, Jesus started off like an angel, just like Lucifer (I'm using the name as most Christians understand 'Satan' but I'm aware of how wrong it is to assume there is a Lucifer). But unlike Lucifer who wanted to grasp godhead for himself, Jesus humbled himself and became incarnate. I know the NIV translates it to make it seem as if Jesus didn't want to enjoy his godhead for himself but the Greek word is actually robbery so that NASB's word 'grasp' is quite accurate. Jesus did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped. You only grasp through robbery what is not yours. Jesus was not equal with God then. But Jesus proved himself obedient even unto death on a cross. Phi says it is FOR THIS REASON (i.e. Jesus' obedience even unto death on a cross) that "God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

Paul did not think that Jesus started off like an angel. Angels never existed in the form of God. And your interpretation is not valid. Paul states that Jesus existed in the form of God. But not regarding equality with God a thing to be grasped, he 'emptied' or 'deprived' Himself of His divine privileges as God.

The word ἁρπαγμός - harpagmos - translated as 'grasped' in Philippians 2:6 carries within its semantic range the idea of the inner state of mind that leads to seizure and greediness as in Luke 11:39. The idea in Philippians 2:6 is that Jesus didn't greedily hold on to his privileges as God, but set them aside in humility and took the form of a man.

The various commentators here, commenting on Philippians disagree with your interpretation.

https://biblehub.com/commentaries/philippians/2-6.htm

Now, this is very high Christology indeed. In the OT, "every knee shall bow and every tongue confess" is only applicable to God the Father. In Paul's view, Jesus was highly exalted to the level of the Father. When was that? Phi makes it clear - after Jesus was obedient enough to suffer death on the cross. Why did the Father highly exalt Jesus? Phi makes it clear too - because Jesus was obedient enough to suffer death on the cross.

This view of Paul's is of course today heretical but we cannot say Paul was wrong. So we reinterpret what Paul says and scholars say this is a difficult passage and basically, they want to tell us that what we read is not what is meant. I cannot accept this because it's totally dishonest.

Paul's view is not heretical today and wasn't heretical when he wrote it.

Another early church thinker I admire is Origen. He was a faithful man of God. He was highly regarded in his day. He was the one who said that Jesus was preeminent but there was a fixed time when God begot Jesus. Hence the Father is above the Son because the Son had a beginning. But he says that Jesus was the first to be created by the Father. And of course he can't be faulted because that's what Paul said also. That Jesus is the firstborn of all creation must mean that Jesus is a creation but firstborn. To say the firstborn of all creation is not a creation is a dishonest nonsense that again I can't accept intellectually.

Of course elsewhere in the NT, adoptionist christology rears its ugly head and we see scholars trying to knock them out. You know the verses (Acts is one of them. Heb too). These are verses where the writer applies what the Father says in the OT specifically to the resurrection of Jesus: "This day have I begotten you". To say God didn't mean "This day have I begotten you" when he said "This day have I begotten you" is again another dishonest statement I can't intellectually accept. I was very disappointed to read that Leon Morris, a scholar I respect, saying that God could not have meant that Jesus was only begotten at the resurrection because 'we know Jesus has always existed'. I have to say such an approach is downright dishonest. To say that we know from our doctrines that Jesus is coeternal with the Father. So let's interpret that verse to be in line with our doctrines. This is precisely what the church has been doing since its earliest days but it's surely dishonest and intellectually flawed.

The same goes with Rom 1:4 where the reading allows for either Jesus was appointed Son of God at his resurrection or declared Son of God at his resurrection. It makes no different to me since I have already shown what Paul's view actually is. Decades after Origen's death, he was posthumously declared a heretic for believing in what Paul wrote that Jesus is the firstborn of all creation. But Paul was never declared a heretic. He wrote (or supposedly wrote) more than half our NT and so we have to accord him full respect. We just have to tweak what he says and get the vicar to tell any inquiring boy that 'Paul didn't mean what he said'. Or a smarter way to go about it is: 'This is a very difficult passage. Let's see what the scholars say.'



I make it a point to answer every question I'm asked but I hope you will excuse me if I don't answer this question directly. I have good reasons not to want to talk about myself. The good thing about a forum such as this is we are all judged by what we say. In the real world, people judge you by your age, your height, etc. I mentioned my mother but maybe it was a slip of the keyboard and I meant to say my wife? Hehe. There are also other problems with revealing one's age. In some forums, there is an age limit. You can't join if you are too young or too old. When I registered with this forum (very recently), I was not asked for my age. So I take it that this forum has no age restrictions but one never knows.

But I want to be judged based on what I say. I was an altar boy when I was a toddler but when I was slightly older, I joined the boys' choir. There is a fluid age limit in the choir. You can't remain in the choir if you are too old. But how old must you be. Our choirmaster used to say that age is not a matter. You are too old only if you sound too old. He means when the voice breaks at puberty and one can't sing. It's not a fixed age. I'd like to think that in this forum, the same rules apply. You are only too young if you sound too young.

I would like to think that there is not a hint of youth or senile dotage in my voice so far.

Cheerio!

No, you have not shown what Paul's view really is. You gave your opinion about what Paul's view really was. A view which is not shared by the commentators here- https://biblehub.com/commentaries/philippians/2-6.htm

nor by Dr. Robert Lightner who did the commentary for Philippians in the Bible Knowledge Commentary who stated regarding Philippians 2:6;

Christ Jesus, Paul said, is of the very essence (morphē) of God, and in His incarnation He embraced perfect humanity. His complete and absolute deity is here carefully stressed by the apostle.

The Bible Knowledge Commentary, New Testament, And Exposition of the Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty, p. 654.

I've already shown you at the bottom of post #111 that adoptionism is not taught in the New Testament.

[JAA2310]

Originally Posted by nateswift

That the Bible contains truth about the Christ is not denied. That it is ALL truth is manifestly absurd in spite of the blatant rationalizations of the vested interest "theologians."

The "reference" needed is the "guide" promised. When you know that guide by the descriptions of the nature of that guide you will have no doubt and you will welcome ANY cogent information and feedback from those you believe to be following that guide to help you determine what your best Way entails.

"By their fruit you will know them."

I believe that your post here (specifically the second and third sentences) is a good comment. Once again, though, we must not consider this apart from the Scriptures, as this is completely in line with the biblical documentation of this very same thing.


But we cannot truly bring forth good fruit unless we have become born of God. That same chapter speaks of those to whom Christ will say, "I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity", showing that not all will inherit the kingdom of heaven.

It has to start with our trusting Christ, rather than in our own efforts or righteousness. Only then can we begin to live a life that is focused on giving glory to God, and desiring to do His will. We have to be as the publican in the parable of the Pharisee and the publican, where Christ highlighted his humility as that which was the attitude that He honored, saying, "I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted. (Luke 18:14). May God help us to be humble, and not to think of ourselves more highly than we ought to, but to embrace the words of Jesus when He says, "without Me you can do nothing".


But yes, we will be known by our fruits. We will never display these good fruits perfectly while still dealing with this flesh, but our lives will ultimately be characterized by a desire to bear fruit to the glory of God.


Just a side note (perhaps)... I am horribly grieved when I see people who seem not to care about how they treat others, or how they make others feel. I've heard people say (even directly to me) that they are not terribly concerned about hurting someone else. The idea of loving our neighbor as ourselves would be another way of saying that we should do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Just imagine, if before we proceeded to do harm to others we would first stop to ask ourselves if we would like them to do this same thing to us. If the answer is no, then we should also refrain from doing it to them (imagine how much less war and maliciousness there would be in the world).


God does give us a conscience, and does make available the milk of human kindness, but unless we are made new creatures in Christ by the power of God (wrought through the hearing of the gospel), we will never truly be focused on glorifying God with our lives.


Thank you.

[nateswift]

A fairly meaningless set of platitudes. Do you have any concrete advice?

[n..Xuipa]

Originally Posted by JAA2310

Just a side note (perhaps)... I am horribly grieved when I see people who seem not to care about how they treat others, or how they make others feel.

God does give us a conscience, and does make available the milk of human kindness, but unless we are made new creatures in Christ by the power of God (wrought through the hearing of the gospel), we will never truly be focused on glorifying God with our lives.


Thank you.

KINDNESS IS A CHEAP IMITATION OF GOD'S LOVE.. KINDNESS IS WHAT WE GIVE THE UNREPENTANT.. Like in Jesus example here on this earth Not all Love is nicey or sweet and fluffy.. all the time.. .. But Jesus words offended mens sin that is in us and then He also provided a way for him , you amd me and everyone in the Spirit to take the powers from the Strong man on the hill/ the giants in your life.. .. Love says you help all get free or healed who ask to be free!!
this means to me that if you love your neighbor and your neighbor come to you and ask for your help to be set of his ( demons.. sins .. addictions etc.aka Giants .) you don't offend the
issue unless you can help him take the hill !! and don't leave anyone to do that for himself!!! that is what Jesus's life teaches us .. and you don't offend the H/ill unless you are willing to help him take the h/ill. or you maybe have to lead him to where he can find someone who will help him in God's spirit to Take that hill from His strong man ( a word used in scripture of "powers and authorities" in high places..) powers we have submitted our hearts , minds, souls and emotions or bodies too . and then in that case you/WE SHOULD TAKE him to someone else.. then you might need to be their nicey-nicey/ KIND support ..but nicey and fluffy by itself is Not nice IF IT LEAVES THOSE WHO WANT FREEdom, STILL IN BONDAGE AND STILL BROKEN .. and neither does "KIND" set the captives free ALL BY ITSELF. this is how you treat others like you would love yourself to health and freedom.
THE KINGDOM OF GOD AND Father's will is freedom for the captives, the bound and the broken .. we must offer them that freedom in someway..That is what LOVE Is ! if we can not do that we also are not loving them. or you/ we didn't both to love ourselves yet either..

SO yes we are to pick our battles wisely and in the Father and Know what hills we ARE to take/ which one at that time to offend or not that day .. But wait for another day.. ... thus where to fight / and WHERE NOT to AND OR WHEN to or when NOT to, BUT OFFER TO TAKE THEM TO SOMEONE ELSE WHO WILL OFFEND THEIR STRONG MEN. AND GIANTS.. . this is easier then you think.. just ask ourselves "where we would go to get real freedom if you were where they are stuck? " .. LOVE SAYS you HELP THE neighbor Find HIS ( the Lords way ) way FOR their freedom ! AND THAT YOU DON'T STOP HELPING THEM UNTIL THEY ARE FREE AND HEALED ..
THIS IS WHAT JESUS WOULD DO IF HE LIVED NEXT DOOR TO ANYONE RIGHT ? I AM TELLING YOU HE DOESN'T SOUND KIND ALL OF THE TIME..

[tithon]

Hi Mike555,

Thank you again for your very detailed response. But are you aware that a lot of the things you stated and quoted actually only serve to confirm what I have written? I will only deal with the first few. I really have to rush because my time is limited. I will deal with the rest of your wonderful reply later.

You wrote this:

Originally Posted by Mike555

McDonald then lists the criteria as Apostolicity, Orthodoxy, Antiquity, Use, Adaptability, and Inspiration. He goes into detail about each of these.


Hebrews is in the NT canon because it meets the criteria which the church used to recognize the authority of a document.

I am very glad you mentioned McDonald because McDonald's book which I have in front of me right now is really a minefield with details of how unreliable the Bible is. A lot of my arguments come from his book.

If you will just consider for a moment Hebrews - you acknowledge that it's totally anonymous. Nobody to this day knows who wrote it. On page 394, McDonald wrote in the same book you mentioned: "The canonical status of Hebrews was insured when a second-century editor... incoporated this writing into the Pauline corpus of letters. ...... When Eusebius accepted Hebrews as one of fourteen 'obvious and plain' letters written by Paul, he conceded that others disputed its authorship and that the church in Rome even denied that Paul had written it. The authorship of the book was central to its acceptance in the churches."

So, we have a book whose acceptance by the church was based on its authorship. They thought Paul wrote it and so the criterion of apostolicity is met.

But we know, and you accept this, that Hebrews is anonymous. Nobody to this day knows who wrote it. The most important reason why it was accepted in the first place proves to be WRONG and false. So you are wrong to say that Hebrews is in the canon because it meets the criteria the church used immediately after you listed the criteria that included apostolicity which you and I know was a criterion that was never met in Hebrews.

Any rational person must know that of all the criteria mentioned for acceptance into the canon, apostolicity must be the most important. The rest are rather iffy at best. Orthodoxy, Antiquity, Use, Adaptability, and Inspiration are all very subjective and debatable and honestly, a raving madman or a rabid zealot can write a book that is viewed as orthodox, old enough, useful, adaptable and inspiring and to say these criteria allow for it to become the word of God is surely wrong. Without apostolicity, lots of men's writings can in fact become the word of God if you just go by those criteria. Apostolicity must be the primary criterion for canonicity and Hebrews lacks this.

Scholars today show that lots of books and epistles of the NT actually lack apostolicity. This is why the Bible is in such a mess today with so many different ideas floating about that allow for millions of denominations. Every pseudepigraphical text which gets into the canon because of it seems to meet the other criteria (and it appears to meet the apostolicity criteria because it was falsely written in the name of an Apostle, a practice which the church admits was quite common and the church weeded out some but certainly not all as modern scholarship reveals) brings with it its own little fragments of unorthodoxy and these fragments are what make the church develop innovative doctrines until we get what we have today.

John's Gospel was certainly not written by John the Apostle. The same goes for the other Gospels. But John brought with it elements which are alien to the Synoptic Gospels and these are the elements that help to bolster our idea today of the Holy Trinity today which differs in the details from many other threads of beliefs that are apparent from other verses in the NT.

Since you quote McDonald, here's what he wrote on page 252 concerning the Gospels and apostolicity. Please read it carefully and you will know why I'm right:

"From the time when the Gospels were written until the middle of the 2nd century at the earliest, apostolic authorship was not yet viewed as one of the significant features of the new Christian writings. The canonical Gospels were produced anonymously, but in the middle to late 2nd century names of apostles (Matthew and John) and those who assisted them (Mark and Luke) began to be attached to these writings to lend credibility to their reports.".

I really have to go now or I'll be in serious life-threatening trouble. I will deal with the rest of your detailed, scholarly and well-considered reply later.

Cheerio!

[Wardendresden]

Originally Posted by Mike555

You are becoming increasingly arrogant and full of yourself.

Mike anyone who openly rejects the teaching of Jesus yet still claims to be a good “christian” is a hypocritical, self centered liar. I advised you on another thread that you should apologize to another poster for calling him a fool. You adamantly refused.

But I tell you, that everyone who is angry with his
brother without a cause shall be in danger of the
judgment; and whoever shall say to his brother, 'Raca!'
shall be in danger of the council; and whoever shall say,
'You fool!' shall be in danger of the fire of Gehenna.

(Matt 5:22) World English Bible

You take foolish pride in thinking you are biblically wise, when your actual actions speak to your self-centerdness and arrogance. And your arrogance is unsurpassed by any other poster on these threads.

Smart people should not listen to anything a Jesus hater such as you is posting about the Bible.


I deliberately chose the WEB translation to give you some hope that you will not burn in an eternal hell, but that your punishment will only be for a period of time.

You might try watching Andy Stanley’s series of sermons on YouTube entitled “The Bible for Grownups.” Andy, the son of Charles Stanley, is very conservative (an MDiv graduate of New Orleans Theological Seminary) but he isn’t an idiot and clearly points out how for numerous decades no one had a Bible yet the Church grew and spread at an astounding rate. http://northpoint.org/messages/the-bible-for-grown-ups/

It wasn’t the Bible that spread Christianity, it was the resurrection of Jesus, that guy whose teachings you spurn.

With regard to F. F. Bruce’s opinions here is a quote from one of his autobiography:

My doctrine of Scripture is based on my study of Scripture, not vice versa. The question, ‘how does that square with inspiration?’ is perhaps asked most insistently when one part of Scripture seems to conflict in sense with another. I suppose much depends on the cast of one’s mind, but I have never been bothered by ‘apparent discrepancies’, nor have I been greatly concerned to harmonize them. My faith can accommodate such ‘discrepancies’ much more easily than it could swallow harmonizations that place an unnatural sense on the text or give an impression of special pleading. If the ‘discrepancies’ are left unharmonized, they may help to a better appreciation of the progress of revelation or of the distinctive outlooks of individual writers.

F. F. Bruce, In Retrospect, pp. 314-315

Once again you have failed to provide a clear perspective of a Biblical scholar. I don’t agree with many of Bruce’s conclusions but he was more honest than you have ever been in speaking of inspiration. Real Christians like Bruce have no problem with inconsistencies because their faith is based in Jesus no matter how much they revere the Bible.

[Michael Way]

Originally Posted by tithon

Hi Mike555,

Thank you again for your very detailed response. But are you aware that a lot of the things you stated and quoted actually only serve to confirm what I have written? I will only deal with the first few. I really have to rush because my time is limited. I will deal with the rest of your wonderful reply later.

You wrote this:


I am very glad you mentioned McDonald because McDonald's book which I have in front of me right now is really a minefield with details of how unreliable the Bible is. A lot of my arguments come from his book.

If you will just consider for a moment Hebrews - you acknowledge that it's totally anonymous. Nobody to this day knows who wrote it. On page 394, McDonald wrote in the same book you mentioned: "The canonical status of Hebrews was insured when a second-century editor... incoporated this writing into the Pauline corpus of letters. ...... When Eusebius accepted Hebrews as one of fourteen 'obvious and plain' letters written by Paul, he conceded that others disputed its authorship and that the church in Rome even denied that Paul had written it. The authorship of the book was central to its acceptance in the churches."

So, we have a book whose acceptance by the church was based on its authorship. They thought Paul wrote it and so the criterion of apostolicity is met.

But we know, and you accept this, that Hebrews is anonymous. Nobody to this day knows who wrote it. The most important reason why it was accepted in the first place proves to be WRONG and false. So you are wrong to say that Hebrews is in the canon because it meets the criteria the church used immediately after you listed the criteria that included apostolicity which you and I know was a criterion that was never met in Hebrews.

Any rational person must know that of all the criteria mentioned for acceptance into the canon, apostolicity must be the most important. The rest are rather iffy at best. Orthodoxy, Antiquity, Use, Adaptability, and Inspiration are all very subjective and debatable and honestly, a raving madman or a rabid zealot can write a book that is viewed as orthodox, old enough, useful, adaptable and inspiring and to say these criteria allow for it to become the word of God is surely wrong. Without apostolicity, lots of men's writings can in fact become the word of God if you just go by those criteria. Apostolicity must be the primary criterion for canonicity and Hebrews lacks this.

No, that does not make the Bible unreliable.

Despite the status of Hebrews being insured after a second century editor (possibly Pantaenus) incorporated Hebrews into the Pauline corpus, Hebrews still adheres to orthodox teachings and was written early enough to have been written by someone closely associated with an apostle even if no one actually knows who the author was. Since it is anonymous, it is not pseudepigraphal. Hebrews meet other criteria which McDonald acknowledges was important to the early church. In his summary of chapter 14, McDonald writes;

In summary, it was important to the church that apostles, or those close to them, produced its writings. It was also important to the church, especially in the second through fourth centuries, that these writings conform to the church's broad core of beliefs. The significance of the NT writings to the churches is shown by their widespread use in the life, teaching, and worship of those churches, and such use also contributed to their canonization. The end product of the long and complex canonization process was an authoritative and inspired instrument that continued to be useful in and adaptible to the ministry and worship of a changing church. That instrument clarified the church's essential identity and mission as a community of Christ.

The Biblical Canon, McDonald, p. 421

And McDonald himself recognizes that the Bible is the word of God, His divine message come to us in human form. So how can the word of God be unreliable?

Quoting McDonald in his introduction to the book;

No credible person person today seriously believes that the Bible fell out of heaven fully bound in its current state with gilded edges and with a highly precise interpretation from God in it. The human dimension of the origin and production of the Bible, as well as how the divine message is conveyed through human words and ideas, cannot be ignored. Human beings were involve in the origins of the Bible, and all of the words and ideas in the Bible are also reflective of human involvement. How the Bible is the word of God and yet comes to us in human form continues to be a mystery to Christians of every generation.This is not only an important part of the church's understanding about the Bible, but also about God's involvement in the human activity of Jesus, whom the church continues to confess as Lord and Christ.

The Biblical Canon, McDonald, p.5

Scholars today show that lots of books and epistles of the NT actually lack apostolicity. This is why the Bible is in such a mess today with so many different ideas floating about that allow for millions of denominations. Every pseudepigraphical text which gets into the canon because of it seems to meet the other criteria (and it appears to meet the apostolicity criteria because it was falsely written in the name of an Apostle, a practice which the church admits was quite common and the church weeded out some but certainly not all as modern scholarship reveals) brings with it its own little fragments of unorthodoxy and these fragments are what make the church develop innovative doctrines until we get what we have today.

John's Gospel was certainly not written by John the Apostle. The same goes for the other Gospels. But John brought with it elements which are alien to the Synoptic Gospels and these are the elements that help to bolster our idea today of the Holy Trinity today which differs in the details from many other threads of beliefs that are apparent from other verses in the NT.

Since you quote McDonald, here's what he wrote on page 252 concerning the Gospels and apostolicity. Please read it carefully and you will know why I'm right:

"From the time when the Gospels were written until the middle of the 2nd century at the earliest, apostolic authorship was not yet viewed as one of the significant features of the new Christian writings. The canonical Gospels were produced anonymously, but in the middle to late 2nd century names of apostles (Matthew and John) and those who assisted them (Mark and Luke) began to be attached to these writings to lend credibility to their reports.".

I really have to go now or I'll be in serious life-threatening trouble. I will deal with the rest of your detailed, scholarly and well-considered reply later.

Cheerio!

You are referring to liberal scholarship. Not all scholars believe that ''lots of books and epistles of the NT actually lack apostolicity.'' I've already quoted F. F. Bruce for example who believed that all of the epistles attributed to Paul are authentic. And again, no Pseudepigrapha book is a part of the canon. The church rejected such writings from being included in the NT canon.

Your claim that John's Gospel was certainly not written by John the Apostle is your opinion and nothing more. The Gospel itself states that the Gospel was written by the disciple whom Jesus loved. So even if you argue that the the disciple who Jesus loved doesn't refer to the apostle John, it still refers to an eyewitness who was one of Jesus' disciples.

Despite McDonald's statement that the names of the apostles or those who assisted them weren't attached to the Gospels until the middle to late 2nd century, there's simply no way to prove that since we don't have manuscript copies of the Gospels that are earlier than the middle of the 2nd century. That means that there is no way of knowing if earlier manuscript copies had the names of the apostles attached to them or not. It's simply speculation to assume that the names weren't attached until later.

And I point out again that if the church simply chose names to attach to the Gospels to give then authority, they could have picked a more authoritative name than Mark. Since Mark was a disciple of Peter, why not use Peter's name instead of Mark unless Mark actually did write the Gospel attributed to him as the early church says he did?

Dr. Darrell Bock of Dallas Seminary speaks to the issue of who wrote the Gospels in this five minute video.

Did Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John actually author the gospel accounts?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4g5cnpO3p8Y

I will end this post by once again repeating the fact that McDonald believes that the Bible is the word of God. If the Bible is the word of God then how can it be unreliable?

No credible person person today seriously believes that the Bible fell out of heaven fully bound in its current state with gilded edges and with a highly precise interpretation from God in it. The human dimension of the origin and production of the Bible, as well as how the divine message is conveyed through human words and ideas, cannot be ignored. Human beings were involve in the origins of the Bible, and all of the words and ideas in the Bible are also reflective of human involvement. How the Bible is the word of God and yet comes to us in human form continues to be a mystery to Christians of every generation.This is not only an important part of the church's understanding about the Bible, but also about God's involvement in the human activity of Jesus, whom the church continues to confess as Lord and Christ. [Bolding mine]

The Biblical Canon, McDonald, p.5

[john620]

Originally Posted by tithon

I don't really know. I suspect we will all be good even without using Jesus as an example. There are a lot of good people of other faiths and on faith too. We all want to be good and it's easier to use the tradition from our different cultures to reinforce the didactic message of being good. For me, it's of course the Christian faith. I've not really thought of the rewards, if any. I think there is research that when you do good deeds, you become healthier. Something to do with the peace of mind that you get. I haven't figured out the after life yet. To be like God is to do good deeds. But whether there really is a place called heaven, I don't know. A famous theologian called John Stott once said there was no hell. That much I think I can agree. Hell is not a geographical place. But whether heaven is the same as hell in that it doesn't exist, I haven't figured out yet.

But we shouldn't need rewards in order to do good deeds. It will be great if there are rewards but that should not be a motivating factor or the deed can't possibly be considered good if the motivation is selfish.

Cheerio!

Goodness is a matter of opinion if no higher power is telling us what it is. Morality is subjective and there are 7.5 billion moralities. If the Bible or any religious book is not true then we have no idea what is universally good.

[nateswift]

Originally Posted by john620

Goodness is a matter of opinion if no higher power is telling us what it is. Morality is subjective and there are 7.5 billion moralities. If the Bible or any religious book is not true then we have no idea what is universally good.

No, john620, YOU may not know, but it is apparent to anyone who is capable of clear thought and the intensely human trait of empathy.

[Wardendresden]

Originally Posted by Mike555

No, that does not make the Bible unreliable.

Despite the status of Hebrews being insured after a second century editor (possibly Pantaenus) incorporated Hebrews into the Pauline corpus, Hebrews still adheres to orthodox teachings and was written early enough to have been written by someone closely associated with an apostle even if no one actually knows who the author was. Since it is anonymous, it is not pseudepigraphal. Hebrews meet other criteria which McDonald acknowledges was important to the early church. In his summary of chapter 14, McDonald writes;

In summary, it was important to the church that apostles, or those close to them, produced its writings. It was also important to the church, especially in the second through fourth centuries, that these writings conform to the church's broad core of beliefs. The significance of the NT writings to the churches is shown by their widespread use in the life, teaching, and worship of those churches, and such use also contributed to their canonization. The end product of the long and complex canonization process was an authoritative and inspired instrument that continued to be useful in and adaptible to the ministry and worship of a changing church. That instrument clarified the church's essential identity and mission as a community of Christ.

The Biblical Canon, McDonald, p. 421

And McDonald himself recognizes that the Bible is the word of God, His divine message come to us in human form. So how can the word of God be unreliable?

Quoting McDonald in his introduction to the book;

No credible person person today seriously believes that the Bible fell out of heaven fully bound in its current state with gilded edges and with a highly precise interpretation from God in it. The human dimension of the origin and production of the Bible, as well as how the divine message is conveyed through human words and ideas, cannot be ignored. Human beings were involve in the origins of the Bible, and all of the words and ideas in the Bible are also reflective of human involvement. How the Bible is the word of God and yet comes to us in human form continues to be a mystery to Christians of every generation.This is not only an important part of the church's understanding about the Bible, but also about God's involvement in the human activity of Jesus, whom the church continues to confess as Lord and Christ.

The Biblical Canon, McDonald, p.5

You are referring to liberal scholarship. Not all scholars believe that ''lots of books and epistles of the NT actually lack apostolicity.'' I've already quoted F. F. Bruce for example who believed that all of the epistles attributed to Paul are authentic. And again, no Pseudepigrapha book is a part of the canon. The church rejected such writings from being included in the NT canon.

Your claim that John's Gospel was certainly not written by John the Apostle is your opinion and nothing more. The Gospel itself states that the Gospel was written by the disciple whom Jesus loved. So even if you argue that the the disciple who Jesus loved doesn't refer to the apostle John, it still refers to an eyewitness who was one of Jesus' disciples.

Despite McDonald's statement that the names of the apostles or those who assisted them weren't attached to the Gospels until the middle to late 2nd century, there's simply no way to prove that since we don't have manuscript copies of the Gospels that are earlier than the middle of the 2nd century. That means that there is no way of knowing if earlier manuscript copies had the names of the apostles attached to them or not. It's simply speculation to assume that the names weren't attached until later.

And I point out again that if the church simply chose names to attach to the Gospels to give then authority, they could have picked a more authoritative name than Mark. Since Mark was a disciple of Peter, why not use Peter's name instead of Mark unless Mark actually did write the Gospel attributed to him as the early church says he did?

Dr. Darrell Bock of Dallas Seminary speaks to the issue of who wrote the Gospels in this five minute video.

Did Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John actually author the gospel accounts?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4g5cnpO3p8Y

I will end this post by once again repeating the fact that McDonald believes that the Bible is the word of God. If the Bible is the word of God then how can it be unreliable?

No credible person person today seriously believes that the Bible fell out of heaven fully bound in its current state with gilded edges and with a highly precise interpretation from God in it. The human dimension of the origin and production of the Bible, as well as how the divine message is conveyed through human words and ideas, cannot be ignored. Human beings were involve in the origins of the Bible, and all of the words and ideas in the Bible are also reflective of human involvement. How the Bible is the word of God and yet comes to us in human form continues to be a mystery to Christians of every generation.This is not only an important part of the church's understanding about the Bible, but also about God's involvement in the human activity of Jesus, whom the church continues to confess as Lord and Christ. [Bolding mine]

The Biblical Canon, McDonald, p.5

There are more scholars in existence than the few you like to quote. And their views, while respecting Scripture, don’t also demand one lose their intelligence to understand. Scholar, and former Bible professor Peter Enns (Inspiration and Incarnation, The Sin of Certainty, The Bible Tells Me So) explains it this way:

1. If I say, “I hate oatmeal” and then turn to someone else and say “I love oatmeal,” I am contradicting myself.

2. If I said 20 years ago “I hate oatmeal” and now say “I love oatmeal,” I am not contradicting myself. Rather my view of oatmeal changed over time.

3. If I say “I hate oatmeal” but my son says “I love oatmeal,” that would not be a contradiction. We are two different people voicing our opinions.

The Bible works more like the second two examples, and not at all like the first. We create problems for ourselves when we assume the first example is relevant. It isn’t.

Someone might say, “Aha. I’ve got you, Enns. The first example IS the right example because God inspired the Bible, and therefore there is only one voice in the Bible: God’s. So for God to say one thing and then the opposite is a contradiction (and we can’t have that) so we know there are no contradictions.”

But surely that is simply a wrong way of thinking.

However inspiration works (and I defy anyone who thinks they have a handle on it), the following is demonstrably true:

The Bible is written by real live people over a long period of time (2nd oatmeal example). In some cases, the effect of time and circumstance can be seen in one person (more closely in keeping with the 2nd oatmeal example), for example Paul, whose letters show differing tones, emphases, and even shifts in thinking.
The Bible records the voices of different people who have different points of view on the same topic (3rd oatmeal example), including what the Law of Moses says, how God acts toward outsiders, how many gods exist, whether the reign of Manasseh was positive or negative, when Jesus cleansed the Temple, what Paul thinks of the Law, and on and on.

The writers of the Bible spanned centuries, lived in different times and places, faced different circumstances (personal and political), and responded to those circumstances from the point of view of their settings in life. A book that brings all of this under one cover is, of course, going to exhibit a lot of diversity.

What are called “contradictions” are only so if one assumes that the purpose of inspiration (however it works) is to align or override the down-to-earth diverse voices we actually encounter in the Bible.

But if inspiration means that God is all about corralling these different voices because “God wrote the Bible” then God did a pretty bad job of it.

So maybe “Does the Bible contradict itself?” is posing a false question rooted in a bad theology.

The “contradictions” in the Bible aren’t contradictions, for the Bible does not reflect the “perfectly consistent mind of God,” but the diversity of time and place of the writers.

I don’t know how else to respect the Bible and what I read there but by arriving at a conclusion like this.
———-
How about another way of thinking about what appear to be contradictions in the Bible:

1. Inspiration is a matter of faith, and no matter how fervently it is believed that doesn’t mean it is comprehended.

2. The Bible we have is a diverse and complex literary product, not reflecting consistently one point of view.

3. Because of #2, we can and should say that inspiration, however it works, must include in its definition the notion that the Bible was written and then edited by people living in and reflecting their particular time and place.

4. If we believe by faith that God inspired the Bible, we need also to believe that God is OK with how the Bible actually works and therefore, by faith, so should we.

https://peteenns.com/there-are-no-co...-in-the-bible/

The Bible is inconsistent as a “holy” book. It reflects numerous opinions of a variety of authors over many centuries. What can be relied upon at one time period is not necessarily applicable at other time frames. And that is how real scholars, not apologists, understand Scripture.

Bottom line is every generation must interpret Scripture for itself, and what God spoke through one person isn’t necessarily appropriate for every generation. That’s why Jesus sent the Holy Spirit—-to help each generation come to its own conclusion. The only eternal truth is Jesus, the guy you don’t respect enough to follow His advice.