tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post114865542805485683..comments2024-03-25T17:35:02.238-04:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Feel free to copy meUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1149300439166906822006-06-02T22:07:00.000-04:002006-06-02T22:07:00.000-04:00Even without the Johannine Comma, we have a fully ...<I>Even without the Johannine Comma, we have a fully sufficient view of the diversity and unity of the Trinity.</I><BR/><BR/>then please present a verse from the NT which mentions that God is a trinity, like the Joahine commaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1149258671893004402006-06-02T10:31:00.000-04:002006-06-02T10:31:00.000-04:00Kaffinator –I, too, had a busy weekend. Sorry for...Kaffinator –<BR/><BR/>I, too, had a busy weekend. Sorry for not getting back to you sooner.<BR/><BR/>The difference between what the actual apostles stated, and what the church accepted? <BR/><BR/>You used three criterion for the what the early church accepted—consistency with existing scriptures, apostolicity, and common usage among the church.<BR/><BR/>Take Jude for example. Allegedly written by the brother of Jesus, and technically qualifies as an apostle. What he stated, did the church accept? He quotes a passage as authoritative in vs. 14-15. Where is that from?<BR/><BR/>1 Enoch. The Apostle’s teaching including holding 1 Enoch as authoritative. Did the Church accept 1 Enoch as authoritative? Some did, some did not. By the time of your cut-off date, 325 CE, it did not. What the church accepted was not being authoritative, an apostle did. Hence a difference. There are more, but that’s a good one.<BR/><BR/>You are right, we have numerous letters that discuss the process. Letters that disagree. You pick a date, 325, which happens to closely (although not completely) align with the current 27 books. Why that date? What makes that date special? If I pick 250 CE as the cut-off for the “early church” or 150 CE, or 100 CE, why are those dates better or worse? Can you show a method by which we can determine God stopped being involved as of 325?<BR/><BR/>Sure I can demonstrate the teaching changed. How many signs did Jesus give?<BR/><BR/>Paul: 0 – Christians do not need signs. (1 Cor. 1:22)<BR/>Mark: 0 – (Mark 8:12)<BR/>Matthew & Luke: 1 sign. (Mt. 12:39 Lk. 11:29)<BR/>John: Many signs (Jn. 2:11)<BR/><BR/>What is the greatest commandment?<BR/><BR/>Paul: Love your neighbor Rom. 13:9<BR/>Jesus: Love God. Mark 12:30.<BR/><BR/>In the books we HAVE the teachings vary. If you are claiming they are close to the original, than the originals have contradictory teachings. If you claim these are errors that crept in, then you would have to agree that what we have does not conform to the original. <BR/><BR/>Simple question—what is the teaching on the number of signs? Is the same as the original or has it changed?<BR/><BR/>You bet your buckles the term “Apostle” is loosely used in the Bible. That is because its definition has changed over time. At the time Paul was using it, it did not have to do with authenticated witness of Jesus. It was a gift. An office. Something that arguably could be granted to anyone, anywhere, anytime. Since Paul himself did not witness Jesus post-resurrection, the last thing in the world he would use is that as a qualification. Is a “false apostle” someone that did not see Jesus, but claims they did, or is it someone that did, and teaches something Paul disagrees with?<BR/><BR/>It is only later that we have re-defined apostle to be only limited to Christ’s time. Can you provide any verse that prohibits an apostle from existing today?<BR/><BR/>You may desire to do some research into how the early church, at any given time, determined what was in the canon. It is a very late development for apostle authorship, or alignment to be considered. Primarily it was what was popular. The Shepard of Hermas, for example or the Apocalypse of Peter were both popular and retained in the canon.<BR/><BR/>I have no idea how a book, written by a God, would be transcribed. That is why I am asking. Show me a method, in which we can see something different than human effort. And this method that you have provided appears very, very human. After-the-fact determination as to what <I>should</I> have been done that directly comports with what <I>was</I> done. <BR/><BR/>Why would any argument on inspiration rest on presupposition of an Inspirer? Shouldn’t the argument demonstrate an inspirer, due to it being different? Regardless of your presupposition of whether the sun orbits the earth, or the earth orbits the sun, argument and proof should demonstrate the stronger position.<BR/><BR/>(By the way. I <B>did</B> presuppose a God that inspired scripture. And was convinced by the arguments presented that I was incorrect. So, for me, the argument did not hinge on presupposition. It hinged on what was more likely to be true.)DagoodShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1149098018693805942006-05-31T13:53:00.000-04:002006-05-31T13:53:00.000-04:00DagoodS (can i call you "Da"?)You're sure prolific...DagoodS (can i call you "Da"?)<BR/>You're sure prolific on a subject (inerrancy) you find "boring." I'd like to read what you have to say on subjects that really interest you! Still , this is good.<BR/><BR/>DagoodS: ..."And where is there any time-limit on God? He could STILL be inspiring books..."<BR/><BR/>sure, why not? and there is scriptural support for such a notion: "If anyone speaks, he should do it as one speaking the very words of God..." IPeter4:11. It seems logical that if we are given such a directive, we should be able to do so, no? Such a notion is quite consistent with the scripture. How much of the bible is the words of "the prophets?" Prophecy is one of the gifts given to the church. ICor. 12.10.<BR/>The Timothy scripture stating that "all scripture is God breathed" would seem to me to be referring to what? The Tenach? The New Testament wasn't around at that point was it? And then, it is "useful for teaching, rebuking,correcting and training in righteousness." (NIV). This doesn't really state the scripture exists in order to prove the existence of God, that is already presumed. So, it seems to me, that those who would use it as such have a faith problem.<BR/>As to "method of ascertaining where God was involved, and where he was not." I'm a little surprised no one's brought this up: (if I might indulge in hyperbole) maybe we could call "God breathed" "God whispered." ie, to truly get the real story we cannot rely on the 15th whisperer in line but must go to the original source. Isn't that the goal, to know God? So maybe God puts his stuff in code, which to the unaided eye is gibberish ("foolishness" ICor.2:14) Heck my whole conversion experience was based on this, not some convoluted arguments on why God must be so. And, I know, I can't be alone in this. I was raised in the church. But, didn't really consider it real until i was 14 and had what i considered an encounter with God. Reading the bible out of boredom one day i had the uncanny feeling that someone was talking to me. I'd heard this stuff all my life, this was very different, a presence. I spent most of my life trying to re-create that 'presence' and I would guess that many who look for reasons to believe are in the same boat. Some look for reason, some look for experience (signs and wonders...can you say pentecostal?) Can't find God so they look for a reason to believe and either hold to some untenable reasons because of some former experience or de-convert noting that reason points another way. sorry, this may have nothing to do with what your talking about, but i'm not going to erase it to preserve my dignity.paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04437206493901034134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1148944347358601602006-05-29T19:12:00.000-04:002006-05-29T19:12:00.000-04:00Hi Dagood,Sorry for the delay, weekend and all ya ...Hi Dagood,<BR/><BR/>Sorry for the delay, weekend and all ya know.<BR/><BR/>> <I>You switched methodologies on me. First it was apostolic teaching, now it is what the early church </I>accepted<I> as apostolic teaching. Bit of a difference.</I><BR/><BR/>Is there? Please demonstrate.<BR/><BR/>> <I>What I meant by after-the-fact is deriving a method to obtain the results desired, with no real basis for why that method is appropriate <B>other</B> than it comes out with the desired results.</I><BR/><BR/>So you are saying that I’m tailoring my approach to the subject to arrive at the 27 books of the New Testament. But I’m not really deriving any method at all, but simply giving you my best explanation of how the early church came to recognize a New Testament canon, and why it is reasonable to accept that canon as reflecting apostolic teaching. It’s not like they did this in a black box, we have tons of letters that discuss the process.<BR/><BR/>> <I>But you don’t have the originals, so any claim that the “teaching” stayed consistent is as difficult as stating the copies are the same as the original.</I><BR/><BR/>You’re going to have to be more specific. Can you demonstrate that the teaching changed? I mean, what would you think if I alleged, without any proof, that in the <I>original</I> version of Romeo and Juliet, the mailman arrived in time and the young lovers lived happily ever after, and then some mystery writer after Shakespeare changed the story to its present tragic form. You’d rightly think I was wasting your time, unless I had evidence of some kind.<BR/><BR/>> <I>Kaffinator – we cannot even agreed on what, exactly, an “apostle” is! Is it someone that was taught directly by Jesus?</I><BR/><BR/>The term is used somewhat loosely in the New Testament. My best definition would run something like, an early, specially appointed, and authenticated witness of Christ. <BR/><BR/>> <I>Unfortunately, as discussed previously, Paul was taught through the use of visions. Could Jesus teach a person in visions today?</I><BR/><BR/>In some legitimate Christian traditions, this question is answered “yes”. To be honest I’m not sure what to make of such claims.<BR/><BR/>> <I>1 Cor. 12:27-28 says apostles are appointed. Is that a list of people that do not exist today? Worse, Paul indicates there are false apostles. 2 Cor. 11:13. How do you know, in your method, whether it is a true apostle or a false apostle’s teaching that is being preserved? Or do you assume the results, and say if it was preserved it was true, if it was not , it was not?</I><BR/><BR/>Wow you ask a lot of questions. Let me answer with a thought-experiment. Let’s suppose we recently discovered what appears to be a brand new Pauline epistle. Would it be scripture? The early church appeared to use a three-pronged standard: apostolicity (authorship or backing from someone with a close connection to Jesus Christ), consistency (aligns well with existing scripture), catholicity (common use amongst many or most churches). So, even if it aligned perfectly with known scripture, probably not. First, it would be impossible to verify whether it was authentic, putting its apostolicity into question. Second, we would know definitively that it was not in common use. So maybe 1.5 out of three stars? :-)<BR/><BR/>> <I> I could go on and on, but prior to the Fourth Century, the lists of what books were accepted and what ones were not is varied (for lack of a better term.) In order to maintain this methodology of “what the early church accepted” one will have to skip around to find the correct “church” and the correct “date.” </I><BR/><BR/>You also ask how we define the “early church” since there some variation between pre-Nicean (325AD) churches on the question of the canon (although the gospels, Acts, and the Pauline epistles—the vast majority of the New Testament—were pretty much always accepted by everybody). The variations are completely understandable. First, the churches were subject to heavy persecution. Second, information did not flow as swiftly as it does today; it would take time for genuine apostolic letters to reach global circulation. Third, there was no globally acknowledged governing body to make such determinations; evidently each church read from those letters it possessed, and considered genuine and edifying. Over time, as pressure eased, information shared, and councils convened, we find the church coming to broad consensus in short order.<BR/><BR/>> <I> Just like when I talk to a jury, it appears to be a method designed to find an outcome that I want.</I><BR/><BR/>Again I’m not spinning a tale but simply telling you what I understand about how the church arrived at the canon. What is the point on trial here? That God was not involved in any of this? Perhaps you feel that if God were involved, that there would be a kind of clockwork precision? That each church would consult some kind of secret God-oracle every Sunday and a flawless, complete, and slightly warm copy of the New Testament would pop out? I guess I’m a little confused where your courtroom analogy is going, since the defendant doesn’t exist. But go ahead and throw him in jail, if you please.<BR/><BR/>Ultimately, any argument on the inspiration of scripture is going to hinge on the acceptance of an Inspirer, who you presuppose not to exist. Therefore, <I>no argument</I> will satisfy.Kaffinatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09146781661881693212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1148821734708473342006-05-28T09:08:00.000-04:002006-05-28T09:08:00.000-04:00Treadwell,I would agree that proving the Bible is ...Treadwell,<BR/><BR/>I would agree that proving the Bible is errant does not equate to it not being inspired. I was discussing more the transmission of the Bible.<BR/><BR/>As we all know, inerrantists, will often make the claim that it was only inerrant in the <I>original</I> And that copyist errors have crept in since then. In the same light, though, if it was only inspired in the original, how can we determine how much (if any) inspiration, or verses based on inspiration, are left?<BR/><BR/>I do not dismiss the Bible because of errors. I do not dismiss the Bible at all. I dismiss the notion that it is divine, for the very same reason that Christians dismiss other books as divine—because it appears so human.<BR/><BR/>If I showed you six apples and said Apple No. 3 was made by magic, wouldn’t you request some demonstration? Something that points Apple No. 3 out as different? And if I told you that it is because it has a stem, and the others don’t, would that be convincing?<BR/><BR/>And I heartily concur—regardless of the enjoyment of our debate here, we must never forget to tend to those in need.DagoodShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1148821677267130012006-05-28T09:07:00.000-04:002006-05-28T09:07:00.000-04:00Kaffinator, good discussion.You switched methodolo...Kaffinator, good discussion.<BR/><BR/>You switched methodologies on me. First it was apostolic teaching, now it is what the early church <I>accepted</I> as apostolic teaching. Bit of a difference.<BR/><BR/>What I meant by after-the-fact is deriving a method to obtain the results desired, with no real basis for why that method is appropriate <B>other</B> than it comes out with the desired results.<BR/><BR/>Using a (poor) analogy, imagine I hold for the proposition that the Chinese are the smartest people in the world. You could ask what method I used to determine that fact. I say the Chinese registered more patents per capita last year, and that is how we know.<BR/><BR/>So, the method I used to determine “smarts” was the registering of patents. But what if China did not recognize patents of the rest of the world? Only their own. And any person could borrow a patent registered elsewhere and register it in China. <BR/><BR/>As you can see, my results are stated—“Chinese are smarter”--, my method demonstrated, and I have even stayed consistent within it. The biggest problem being, that the method, even applied, is not an accurate determinative of “smarts.”<BR/><BR/>In the same way, Christians recognize transmission problems. Yet they desire the Bible to be divine. So you have indicated a method, “that the apostolic teaching stays consistent.” Yet how do we know that this is the method God uses? We don’t. It is a default position, desired to address the questions I presented with what you have.<BR/><BR/>But you don’t have the originals, so any claim that the “teaching” stayed consistent is as difficult as stating the copies are the same as the original.<BR/><BR/>Kaffinator – we cannot even agreed on what, exactly, an “apostle” is! Is it someone that was taught directly by Jesus? Unfortunately, as discussed previously, Paul was taught through the use of visions. Could Jesus teach a person in visions today?<BR/><BR/>1 Cor. 12:27-28 says apostles are appointed. Is that a list of people that do not exist today? Worse, Paul indicates there are false apostles. 2 Cor. 11:13. How do you know, in your method, whether it is a true apostle or a false apostle’s teaching that is being preserved? Or do you assume the results, and say if it was preserved it was true, if it was not , it was not?<BR/><BR/>You are correct, we DO perform this type of methodology in front of juries all the time. <I>Because we are trying to convince the jury of our position!</I> I am not going to use the prosecutor’s method, because I will lose. I attempt to show the jury why my method of determining the truth is much, much better, with the hope of getting the intended result. How does this help you position—pointing out how we bend methods to fit our proposition? Again, it seems quite human.<BR/><BR/>I like the bit about what the early church accepted. <BR/><BR/>O.K., simple question. What year is the cut-off? At what year do we switch out of the “early church” and any accepted list thereafter is considered null and void? At what point do we say, “HERE they were incorrect before, they will be incorrect after, but are most certainly correct now.”?<BR/><BR/>And how do you come up with that year? Are you simply taking the Bible as it stands, and finding the earliest date by which some list conforms to it?<BR/><BR/>In 144 CE, Marcion proposed a canon of Paul’s writings and the Gospel of (modified) Luke. Is that “early Church”? Or will I be told that this is “Early (wrong) church”?<BR/><BR/>You have the Diatessaron, which was a harmonization of the four Gospels, in 150 CE. Already, the “kinks” are being worked out! Is that part of the Early Church? He rejected 1 Timothy. How does that conform to your methodology?<BR/><BR/>The Gospel of Peter was accepted as an apostolic teaching up until at least 200 CE. Is that too early, or too late to be in the “early church”?<BR/><BR/>Clement of Alexandria, in 200 CE held the Gospel of the Hebrews, Shepard of Hermas, Apocalypse of Peter and Epistle of Barnabas as canonical. <BR/><BR/>The Muratorian Canon does not include Hebrews, James, 1 &2 Peter, and 3 John, but does include the Apocalypse of Peter and the Book of Wisdom.<BR/><BR/>I could go on and on, but prior to the Fourth Century, the lists of what books were accepted and what ones were not is varied (for lack of a better term.) In order to maintain this methodology of “what the early church accepted” one will have to skip around to find the correct “church” and the correct “date.” <BR/><BR/>Just like when I talk to a jury, it appears to be a method designed to find an outcome that I want.DagoodShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1148688537755877282006-05-26T20:08:00.000-04:002006-05-26T20:08:00.000-04:00Just noticed that I misread you, you were suggesti...Just noticed that I misread you, you were suggesting the Epistle of Barnabas, not Thomas. I'll have to check my references before commenting on it.Kaffinatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09146781661881693212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1148674340518214382006-05-26T16:12:00.000-04:002006-05-26T16:12:00.000-04:00To continue the discussion…> You state that God wo...To continue the discussion…<BR/><BR/>> <I>You state that God works differently in differing circumstances. Then, are you claiming that it is all after-the-fact? However it comes out, that must be the way God works? If we have a direct copy of Mark, then God worked that way. If we have no copies of the Gospel of Jairus, then God worked that way.</I><BR/><BR/>I hate to have to point out the obvious, but we are talking about historical events, which by definition means every statement of fact, every hypothesis, every argument, and every conclusion will indeed be “after the fact”. We simply seek good explanations that are consistent with the facts at hand. There’s nothing “ad-hoc” (in the sense of logically fallacious) about this process. Heck, it’s what you ask a jury to do in the courtroom all the time, is it not?<BR/><BR/>> <I>If so, then we really have no way whatsoever to determine how God was involved. Or if he even was. It all remains very [human-looking].</I><BR/><BR/>Your critique as it is presupposes God. In such a context it is absurd to ask whether the God who numbers the very hairs on our heads was involved. <I>Of course he was.</I> The question is simply how and to what end, and on this matter scripture itself speaks.<BR/><BR/>If, on the other hand, you are looking for some kind of incontrovertible proof of God in a manner that will satisfy the requirements of a hardened evidentialist who presupposes God’s non-existence ... well, then the conclusion that God was <I>not</I> involved shouldn't surprise anybody, because you've already paid off the refs to throw the game. <BR/><BR/>> <I> There is no promise at all! […] Where did God indicate that you will have “reasonable confidence” that the teaching you receive are apostolic? </I><BR/><BR/>Actually scripture <I>does</I> promise that the teachings necessary for salvation will survive. We find it in Isaiah’s prophecy that God’s Word will not return empty but accomplish that for which he sent it. We find it in Christ’s promise that the church (the upholder of the apostolic witness found in scripture) will always stand against the forces of Hell. We find it in Christ’s prophecy that even when heaven and earth pass away, His words will not pass away.<BR/><BR/>> <I>Why is apostolic a requirement? Couldn’t the Spirit teach non-apostles?</I><BR/><BR/>“Apostolic” is the requirement because it is acknowledged by Christ’s command in Matthew 28 and God’s visible anointing at Pentecost that His closest disciples, the apostles, would be the ones to carry forward the institution of Christ’s church. They apostles had a unique, divine mandate for their initial activity. Others can certainly be taught by the spirit but we recognize the Apostles as having this special role.<BR/><BR/>> <I> The entire Tanakh is written by non-apostles. Can you explain the sudden shift?</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, and the New Testament authors were quite clear that Christians stand in legitimate succession to the prophets of the OT. Why the shift? You will have to look to the empty tomb for that reason I guess.<BR/><BR/>> <I>Is every teaching that appears “apostolic” a basis for entering the Bible? 1 Clement, and the Epistle of Barnabas qualify. The Gospel of Thomas purports to be from an apostle. Or are we going to limit which apostles the teaching must come from?</I><BR/><BR/>1 Clement was never considered by Christians as a candidate for addition to the canon because Clement, though a respected church leader, was not closely associated with that initial, anointed burst of activity we call apostolic. Thomas’ obviously late authorship and dubious teachings would have made it an even poorer candidate. There’s no double-standard here, my friend.<BR/><BR/>> <I>Scholarship is veering away from Mark as either being an apostle (no one has claimed he was) or that he got his information from an apostle. If this is demonstrated with “reasonable confidence” can you stay consistent and strike it from your Bible?</I><BR/><BR/>Frankly in this matter I have more respect for the conclusions of the early church, amongst whom few if any disputed Mark’s canonicity, than I have in the ability of scholars 2000 years after the fact to piece together what they consider to be the truth. Maybe Peter dictated to Mark, maybe not. We’ll never know for sure. But what we do know without any doubt is that early Christians preserved Mark, read from Mark, discussed Mark’s contents, and ultimately agreed on Mark’s canonicity.<BR/><BR/>> <I>Hebrews has always had an unknown author. Can an unknown, as long as it follows apostolic authority, be inspired? Recent study demonstrates that Colossians, Ephesians, the Pastorals, and 2 Thess. were not written by Paul. Do they get the “grandfather” clause because we always thought they were? Even Eusebius determine Revelation was not written by John the Apostle. 2 Peter is a copy of Jude, an unknown, but presumed apostle. Does this qualify? 1-3 John are unknown authors.</I><BR/><BR/>Here is a flurry of assertions that I’m not really qualified to rebut, except to say the demonstrations of “recent study” are always provisional, tentative, and lacking in real data upon which to base solid conclusions. Nobody has, or ever will have, videotape proof that Paul did not write Colossians. Again, what we do have is the unified voice of the early church in its acceptance of all of the Pauline epistles, save the disputed epistle to the Laodiceans, which you’ll note is not in our Bibles.<BR/><BR/>> <I>If conformance with apostolic teaching is the method by which we determine the validity of transmission, is the Johannine Comma correctly added or not? I would think you agree that the trinity is part of the apostolic teaching. Therefore it fits the requirement. If you say it is added too late, then you must come up with a method by which “adding” is timely. As the earliest MSS we have are Early third Century, there is no feasible way to determine what was added (although we can hypothesize) prior to that date.</I><BR/><BR/>I’m no text scholar and so not qualified to discuss how we arrive at the conclusion that the Comma was a late addition. The teaching of the trinity is accurate but no, the words of the Comma do not represent our best picture of what the autographs contained. The fact that current translations point this out should signify to you our care for preserving the fidelity of the Bible’s message, even when this is inconvenient.Kaffinatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09146781661881693212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1148671339986819922006-05-26T15:22:00.000-04:002006-05-26T15:22:00.000-04:00Kaffinator, as always, thanks for your comment.I w...Kaffinator, as always, thanks for your comment.<BR/><BR/>I would agree that the “hands-off God” or the “spell-check” God are strawmen. I have never met a Christian that held to either proposition. (Having said that, watch one pop out!) What I was trying to figure out, if it is not Black, nor is it White, what shade of gray is it, and how do we determine it? Where, in the middle, can we come up with a system?<BR/><BR/>You state that God works differently in differing circumstances. Then, are you claiming that it is all after-the-fact? However it comes out, that must be the way God works? If we have a direct copy of Mark, then God worked that way. If we have no copies of the Gospel of Jairus, then God worked that way.<BR/><BR/>If so, then we really have no way whatsoever to determine how God was involved. Or if he even was. It all remains very human looking.<BR/><BR/>I wasn’t really talking about the creation of the canon, but more its transmission, so I will focus on your answer, there. (another time on the canon, of course.)<BR/><BR/>You are right that God makes no promises about receiving letter for letter copy of what Jesus or the apostles said. Of course, nor did He make any promise about receiving word for word. Or paragraph for paragraph. Or book for Book. Or even teaching for teaching. There is no promise at all! So, in using this as a basis, we have no reason to believe, whatsoever, that anything we have has been touched by God at all. <BR/><BR/>Where did God indicate that you will have “reasonable confidence” that the teaching you receive are apostolic? Why is apostolic a requirement? Couldn’t the Spirit teach non-apostles? The entire Tanakh is written by non-apostles. Can you explain the sudden shift? <BR/><BR/>This is one of those after-the-fact definitions. Because early authors attributed writings to apostles, Christians later defined “apostolic authorship” as a basis for canonicity. Yet nowhere is that requirement spelled out. Is every teaching that appears “apostolic” a basis for entering the Bible? 1 Clement, and the Epistle of Barnabas qualify. The Gospel of Thomas purports to be from an apostle. Or are we going to limit which apostles the teaching must come from?<BR/><BR/>Let’s see if we can stay consistent in this methodology. Mark was not an apostle. He got his information from Peter, according to Papias. Yet Papias is incorrect about Mark not being in order (it is in a very specific order) and if Mark got his information about Peter, Peter seems to have forgotten the very geography in which he lived! As well as the ten commandments!<BR/><BR/>Scholarship is veering away from Mark as either being an apostle (no one has claimed he was) or that he got his information from an apostle. If this is demonstrated with “reasonable confidence” can you stay consistent and strike it from your Bible? Certainly we have no proof of where the ending of Mark came from, so claiming that it should be chopped out entirely.<BR/><BR/>We know Luke was not an apostle. Nor do we know where he obtained his information (other than Mark) It should get the axe. The fact that Matthew relies upon Mark demonstrates this author was not an apostle. At best he got his information from a person who got their information from an apostle. How far down the line before it is no longer from apostolic authority?<BR/><BR/>Hebrews has always had an unknown author. Can an unknown, as long as it follows apostolic authority, be inspired? Recent study demonstrates that Colossians, Ephesians, the Pastorals, and 2 Thess. were not written by Paul. Do they get the “grandfather” clause because we always thought they were? Even Eusebius determine Revelation was not written by John the Apostle. 2 Peter is a copy of Jude, an unknown, but presumed apostle. Does this qualify? 1-3 John are unknown authors.<BR/><BR/>Christians cannot stay consistent in this method. Without knowing who originally wrote the books, claiming transmission is along the lines of apostolic teaching is not helpful. Worse, without having the original to determine, how do we know if the copies introduced non-apostolic teaching? <BR/><BR/>In order to substantiate this method, we would need the original teachings to compare. Obviously, (as the point of the blog) something we do not have.<BR/><BR/>If conformance with apostolic teaching is the method by which we determine the validity of transmission, is the Johannine Comma correctly added or not? I would think you agree that the trinity is part of the apostolic teaching. Therefore it fits the requirement. If you say it is added too late, then you must come up with a method by which “adding” is timely. As the earliest MSS we have are Early third Century, there is no feasible way to determine what was added (although we can hypothesize) prior to that date.<BR/><BR/>Finally, I might add, what we see is very human. What is transmitted and accepted by current Christians as correct is determined to be divine. What is transmitted and NOT accepted by current Christians is determined to be human. The only problem is that “current Christians” cannot agree with each other as to what should be accepted!DagoodShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1148670522718655172006-05-26T15:08:00.000-04:002006-05-26T15:08:00.000-04:00DagoodS, I read what you wrote this morning and I'...DagoodS, I read what you wrote this morning and I've mulled it over in my mind all day today. After thinking about it I'd say that you very wisely pinpointed the exact problem Christians have when they affirm the canonical Bible is God's Word. What about the Gospel of Jarius? :-) <BR/><BR/>When I used to defend inerrancy I was never troubled by the problem of not having the autographic texts from the hands of what I believed were the inspired writers. And I haven't thought much about that particular problem since leaving the faith, until you wrote this Blog. Kudos to you.<BR/><BR/>Christians must believe that God not only inspired men to write the Bible, but also that he inspired those who transcribed it and inspired those who chose which books go in it.<BR/><BR/>What's interesting to me is how God could inspire men to do and say one thing while also allowing them to be wrong on other things (Peter, for instance Galatians 2:11ff). I'm sure all of those who transcribed the Bible didn't have inspired views of what it said, and I'm sure the men who chose the canonical texts had views about the Bible which Christians might reject. And surely none of the men in this whole process were pure and free from sin. Sin. That's selfishness, arrogance, power hungry, greedy, and lustful. And yet we're supposed to think that these men were inspired only when it comes to the writing, transmission, and choosing the canonical Bible. That's a whole lot to swallow.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1148668855859794312006-05-26T14:40:00.000-04:002006-05-26T14:40:00.000-04:00Hi Dagood, I just finished reading Bart Ehrman's b...Hi Dagood,<BR/><BR/> I just finished reading Bart Ehrman's book "Misquoting Jesus, the Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why." You, very closely, echo what Ehrman has to say about transcript changes to the New Testament. If any readers would like more detail on textual and transcribing accuracy then I would highly recomend Ehrman's book. Some 300 or so years ago a scholar, "John Mill" spent 30 years examining 100 NT manuscripts and the early writings of the church fathers and found 30,000 transcriptual variations! Today, with 5700 manuscripts and/or pieces thereof Ehrman says there are more variations between the manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament! Doesn't seem very "God inspired" to me.<BR/><BR/>Randy F.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1148664864543318512006-05-26T13:34:00.000-04:002006-05-26T13:34:00.000-04:00Hi Dagood,You present two extremes, with God eithe...Hi Dagood,<BR/><BR/>You present two extremes, with God either mechanistically directing every action in regards to scripture, or God is a hands-off deist after setting the original texts in motion. Your claim is that Christians land somewhere in between these two extremes. But a better way to think about this is that Christians believe God works <I>differently</I> in different circumstances.<BR/><BR/>In the case of authorship, we believe that the Spirit carried the authors along, protecting them from the teaching error, while at the same time not abridging or removing any of the human faculties that went into the writing. So even at the very outset, in the autographs themselves, we do not see a mechanistic God-typewriter at play in the human authors. For example, the idea that Paul, as he wrote an epistle, might have made a spelling error, does not present any real theological problem. However, we believe that the real meaning of what the canonical books teach is true and is from God.<BR/><BR/>In the case of the recognition of the canon, remember that the early saints did not use a criteria of “is the book inerrant” to determine what was scripture and what was not. Their criteria was more along the lines of, does the book have apostolic backing? Does it faithfully reflect the apostolic faith? Is it in common use among the churches of God? Does it agree with what we already have?<BR/><BR/>In the case of the canon’s transmission, God makes no promises that we will receive a letter-for-letter correct copy of exactly what fell from the mouth of any apostle or even Christ himself. Nor is such a guarantee necessary to preserve the essential truths that can make us "wise for salvation". All that is necessary is that we have a reasonable confidence that the teachings we receive are indeed apostolic, and despite decades upon decades of sustained text criticism, no such teaching of scripture has truly been jeopardized. Even without the Johannine Comma, we have a fully sufficient view of the diversity and unity of the Trinity. Even without the Markan addition we have a sufficient view of the resurrection of Christ.<BR/><BR/>I would like to say you are presenting a strawman defendant but I don’t think you are. Plenty of Christians <I>do</I> rest on an argument for inerrancy that they cannot defend. But there are plenty of Christian thinkers that <I>do</I> fairly grapple with the issues and I think you do yourself a disservice to pick on the easy targets who “throw their hands up” at the issue.Kaffinatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09146781661881693212noreply@blogger.com