# Biblical authority



## JFS (Sep 18, 2011)

I really want to understand this but the christians won't explain it to me in the other forum so maybe you guys can help.  What's the best argument for the claim the bible is the inerrant word of god?  Jesus didn't hand it to someone and say "here's the word", so it's a weaker claim than even the mormans and the muslims.  And you can't claim the bible itself as the authority, that would be entirely circular.  And I don't see how you can claim reason or logic, because on independent assesment you'd never buy all the wacky stuff unless you already believe.   

So what's left? Tradition?  Intuition?   I really don't get it.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Sep 18, 2011)

I believe that it contains the gospel story that I have put my trust in but as far as being the "word of God" ? No, to many contridictions of context for God to have been the aurthor. Yet, I still read it because of the context within. Others believe it is inerrant "by faith". Traditional thinking is hard to change. Those who are KJ only for example. Once someone is taught something, they fight to prove themselves right without having ever studied the issue. People tend to not study the issue as if it were a lack of faith, or afraid to find out that they are wrong. So, for me, I'm happy letting everyone be responsible for their own beliefs. If they believe something because this is what they wish to believe, then great, call it faith if you like. But for me, My "faith" has to be supported. If there are 5 bridges and you ask me to drive across to the other side and ask which one do I have faith in, then I will take a lookat the choices and after careful inspection, will let you know which one I will put my faith in. Not based on a preachers report of the middle bridge being the strongest one.


----------



## JFS (Sep 18, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> Once someone is taught something, they fight to prove themselves right without having ever studied the issue. People tend to not study the issue as if it were a lack of faith, or afraid to find out that they are wrong.



1gr8bldr I was actually thinking of you this morning.  I was at a lecture that went over a number of examples of original scripture where the actual text differs from the layperson's common understanding.  Fascinating stuff.


----------



## centerpin fan (Sep 18, 2011)

JFS said:


> ... the christians won't explain it to me in the other forum ...



You started a similar thread in one of the other spiritual forums?


----------



## Ronnie T (Sep 18, 2011)

JFS said:


> 1gr8bldr I was actually thinking of you this morning.  I was at a lecture that went over a number of examples of original scripture where the actual text differs from the layperson's common understanding.  Fascinating stuff.



You actually attended a lecture that was organized to find faults in the holy Bible??????????

Wow!  You'll have to find another monkey to play with today.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 18, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> .....I will take a look at the choices and after careful inspection, will let you know which one I will put my faith in. Not based on a preachers report of the middle bridge being the strongest one.



X2.  I find my faith is stronger when I come to it on my own.  Most of my life I took other folks' word for it, and honestly, a lot of what is taught doesn't make sense.


----------



## jmharris23 (Sep 18, 2011)

I could answer this question but in order to do that you would have to believe the bible.....since you do not then we wouldn't get anywhere....so I believe I'll just leave this one alone


----------



## JFS (Sep 18, 2011)

jmharris23 said:


> I could answer this question but in order to do that you would have to believe the bible.....since you do not then we wouldn't get anywhere....so I believe I'll just leave this one alone



But there you go illustrating my point.   How can you say you can show biblical authority but first you have to believe in the bible?


----------



## JFS (Sep 18, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> You actually attended a lecture that was organized to find faults in the holy Bible??????????
> 
> Wow!  You'll have to find another monkey to play with today.



Oh come now Ronnie, we do that all the time here.  There is nothing wrong with looking back at the source Greek to see what scripture actually says instead of just taking someone's hand me down word for it.


----------



## willy57 (Sep 18, 2011)

I believe in the Faith, faith is the substance of things sought for the evedence not yet seen. and Trust in the Lord with all thine heart but lean not unto thine own undestanding.And i personally beleive i see God in our world everyday. When im fishing, at work ,or in the deer stand i look at all Gods beautiful surroundings the sun, moon, stars, birds, bees, trees flowers, deer, the great Ocean to me i see God in his works . best of luck to you im your faith.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 18, 2011)

willy57 said:


> I believe in the Faith, faith is the substance of things sought for the evedence not yet seen. and Trust in the Lord with all thine heart but lean not unto thine own undestanding.And i personally beleive i see God in our world everyday. When im fishing, at work ,or in the deer stand i look at all Gods beautiful surroundings the sun, moon, stars, birds, bees, trees flowers, deer, the great Ocean to me i see God in his works . best of luck to you im your faith.



There are many God's worldwide. Many people see it just as you do but owe it to their God. Why are they wrong?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Sep 18, 2011)

JFS said:


> 1gr8bldr I was actually thinking of you this morning.  I was at a lecture that went over a number of examples of original scripture where the actual text differs from the layperson's common understanding.  Fascinating stuff.


What is interesting to me is realizing the pressure of translators to give a traditional rendering. An example of "original" verses the modern day viewpoint; The use of the word God. We see it as God himself. But actually it is Yahweh that is the original name of God. We even have people writing G-d in a form of copying the original use of YHWH. The NT does not support the way we use the word God. It uses it like a title. Proof of this is; Jesus said "you are gods", the god of this world has blinded the minds...". I am rambling now, back to your post, yes, very interesting. Interesting how those are offended if you look to the original greek usuage instead of the modern day usuage


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Sep 18, 2011)

JFS said:


> 1gr8bldr I was actually thinking of you this morning.  I was at a lecture that went over a number of examples of original scripture where the actual text differs from the layperson's common understanding.  Fascinating stuff.


Courious, was the lecturer neutral in his teaching or a disbeliever or a believer??? I don't know why I ask this? I'm just interested in stuff like this. I will never have the time to take any religious classes but I enjoy how it pervokes me to thought. I would love to take Bart Erhman on a fishing trip. To sit on the river, anchored up, guarding some rods, talking about this sort of thing. I think I could convert him back


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Sep 18, 2011)

Most trust the bible to be 100% God's word to man. I used to believe this until I had read it 1000 times and begin to see conflicts. My faith is stronger now than then. My faith is not in "the bible", instead, it is in the gospel story that was handed down as best they could. Find mistakes and contridictions, no problem, does not weaken my faith at all because it is not in the inerrancy of it.


----------



## JFS (Sep 18, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> Courious, was the lecturer neutral in his teaching or a disbeliever or a believer???



It was a pastor discussing Rob Bell's book, so believer, but on the liberal christian side of the spectrum.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Sep 18, 2011)

JFS said:


> It was a pastor discussing Rob Bell's book, so believer, but on the liberal christian side of the spectrum.



Never heard of him. I'll google


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Sep 18, 2011)

Googled him. Universalist. I don't agree but only because of the context of the scriptures. Which I know is circular, meaning that I'm using the bible as my proof which may not be the foundation of his beliefs.


----------



## centerpin fan (Sep 18, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> Never heard of him.



You're not missing anything.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Sep 18, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> You're not missing anything.



He may well be very devoted to his beliefs but all I see is someone trying to make a name for themselves. Preacher gaga, cousin of Ladygaga


----------



## centerpin fan (Sep 18, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> He may well be very devoted to his beliefs but all I see is someone trying to make a name for themselves.



That sums it up nicely.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 18, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> He may well be very devoted to his beliefs but all I see is someone trying to make a name for themselves. Preacher gaga, cousin of Ladygaga



Rob Bell already had a name for himself.  Every contemporary church I have ever been in practically worshipped the man.  

I have not read the book, I am assuming it is "love wins."  The basis is he could not reconcile the thought of Ghandi in he11, so he studied, and wrote a book.

Oh, and now he is considered pretty much a heretic by all those folks who used to worship (not literally) him.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 18, 2011)

JFS said:


> I was at a lecture that went over a number of examples of original scripture where the actual text differs from the layperson's common understanding.  Fascinating stuff.



Just curious, because I think you claim to be agnostic, what was the motivation for attending such a lecture on this particular book (on a Sunday? were you in church)?

I did not know there were folks doing lectures on this work. I intend to get it myself, don't have time for recreational reading.....yet.....


----------



## JFS (Sep 19, 2011)

JFS said:


> I really want to understand this but the christians won't explain it to me in the other forum so maybe you guys can help.  What's the best argument for the claim the bible is the inerrant word of god?  Jesus didn't hand it to someone and say "here's the word", so it's a weaker claim than even the mormans and the muslims.  And you can't claim the bible itself as the authority, that would be entirely circular.  And I don't see how you can claim reason or logic, because on independent assesment you'd never buy all the wacky stuff unless you already believe.
> 
> So what's left? Tradition?  Intuition?   I really don't get it.




So back to the original question:  What's the basis for the position the bible is the literal and inerrant word of god?


----------



## rjcruiser (Sep 19, 2011)

JFS said:


> So back to the original question:  What's the basis for the position the bible is the literal and inerrant word of god?



Oh boy...here's an answer...not sure how much time I'll be able to give this one as the next week or two is going to be busy...but here goes.

Biggest thing for me is the prophecy that it holds in it.  Lots of prophecy in the OT that has already been fulfilled.  Not one of them incorrect.

Then, a close second to the prophecy, is the lack of change from earlier copies.  Many people think that over the years through all the copies and translations that the Bible has changed and now includes errors (btw...that's how we got the Book of Mormon).  The thing is, with archeological finds we've had, that has been proven false.  The dead sea scrolls were instrumental in proving this.  


Here's a book you should read if you want to know more.  I've got a copy at home, but it has been a little while since I last read it.  The author is actually a friend of mine.

http://www.amazon.com/Reasons-We-Believe-Evidence-Christian/dp/1433501465

You can buy new for $10 or used for $5.  I think it would be a better spend than a conference.


----------



## stringmusic (Sep 19, 2011)

JFS said:


> I really want to understand this but the christians won't explain it to me in the other forum so maybe you guys can help.  What's the best argument for the claim the bible is the inerrant word of god?  Jesus didn't hand it to someone and say "here's the word", so it's a weaker claim than even the mormans and the muslims.  And you can't claim the bible itself as the authority,* that would be entirely circular*.  And I don't see how you can claim reason or logic, because on independent assesment you'd never buy all the wacky stuff unless you already believe.
> 
> So what's left? Tradition?  Intuition?   I really don't get it.


Why? It's not as if the Bible is one book by one author? Why can't a book by Solomon validify a book or letter by Paul 1,000 years later?


----------



## JFS (Sep 19, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Why? It's not as if the Bible is one book by one author?



Can you take me through your analysis on that?  I am not disputing your observation, but I don't see how it answers my question.

But to your point of separate books, where does the bible claim to be the inerrant word of god, and if the bible is separate books how does that claim transfer to the other parts then?


----------



## centerpin fan (Sep 19, 2011)

JFS said:


> ... where does the bible claim to be the inerrant word of god,



I don't think the word "inerrant" is ever used.  "Inspired" is used, however (2 Timothy 3:16.)


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Sep 19, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> I don't think the word "inerrant" is ever used.  "Inspired" is used, however (2 Timothy 3:16.)



When Paul penned this, he had no idea that what he was writing would ever become part of the canon. He was refering to the OT. He was simply writing to an intended audience, not intending it to include his own writings.


----------



## centerpin fan (Sep 19, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> He was refering to the OT.



I agree.




1gr8bldr said:


> He was simply writing to an intended audience, not intending it to include his own writings.



I'm not so sure about that.  In 2 Thessalonians 2:15, he makes it clear that the disciples should hold to his teaching:

_So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter _ (emphasis mine.)


----------



## bullethead (Sep 19, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> When Paul penned this, he had no idea that what he was writing would ever become part of the canon. He was refering to the OT. He was simply writing to an intended audience, not intending it to include his own writings.



Or was he(or whoever wrote it) fully intending it to be included? Maybe the author new full well that it's inclusion was guaranteed? Maybe it was added to after the fact?


----------



## stringmusic (Sep 19, 2011)

JFS said:


> Can you take me through your analysis on that?  I am not disputing your observation, but I don't see how it answers my question.


I didn't mean my post as an answer to the OP, just the part in red. My point was if one author had writen one book, called the Bible, then I would agree with your assement. If Muhammad says Muhammad is correct in the Quran, to me that is circular. When NT writers affirm OT writers thousands of years later with no way of communicating, that gives it validity to me.



> But to your point of separate books, where does the bible claim to be the inerrant word of god, and if the bible is separate books how does that claim transfer to the other parts then?


The Bible claims to be truth, I think the OT prophecies coming to fruition lends credit to that.

What "other parts" are you refering to?


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 19, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Or was he(or whoever wrote it) fully intending it to be included? Maybe the author new full well that it's inclusion was guaranteed? Maybe it was added to after the fact?




How could it be guaranteed?  He didn't even know there ever would be a Bible.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 19, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> How could it be guaranteed?  He didn't even know there ever would be a Bible.



Maybe he had ideas to start it?(along with Christianity)??

Didn't Paul have access to the Jewish Bible(Tanakh)?


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 19, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Maybe he had ideas to start it?(along with Christianity)??
> 
> Didn't Paul have access to the Jewish Bible(Tanakh)?



Not sure what he had access to.  But, from what I understand, the Bible wasn't pulled together for another few hundred years.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 19, 2011)

True, the OT was already there(although not called the OT at the time).


----------



## centerpin fan (Sep 19, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Not sure what he had access to.



He certainly had access to the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the OT.  It was "the Bible" of the early church.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 20, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> He certainly had access to the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the OT.  It was "the Bible" of the early church.



My point was that the Bible, as we understand it, was not conceptualized when the letters were written.  I doubt Paul believed he was writing for the next several thousands of years of generations.  They thought, from my understanding, that Jesus would return in their lifetime, just like every generation of Christians since.


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 20, 2011)

referring to 2 Tim 3:16...



> When Paul penned this, he had no idea that what he was writing would ever become part of the canon. He was refering to the OT. He was simply writing to an intended audience, not intending it to include his own writings.



and then JB said...



> My point was that the Bible, as we understand it, was not conceptualized when the letters were written. I doubt Paul believed he was writing for the next several thousands of years of generations.



Absolutely, 2 Tim 3:16 was primarily referring to the OT or existing "scriptures" at the time.  BUT...some of the writings in the NT that existed at that time were already considered "scripture".  Was there a concept of "Bible" at that time?  I don't know.  Likely not.  But it doesn't change the fact that NT writings were already being referred to as "scripture" at that time.  Where?

1 Tim 5:18

_18 For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.”_
(note the red part vs the black...The red are the words of Christ from Matt 10:10, Luke 10:7 and other passages.  The black is from the OT...both considered scripture by the author)

2 Peter 3:15-16

_15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures._

(again...note the red.  I added that to make it stand out.  Putting "other Scriptures" on par with the writings of Paul.)

The point is that, no, they may not have known the concept of the modern "Bible".  But, as far as I'm concerned, they knew very well that what they were writing was the direct and commanded teaching of Christ and would likely be considered "new Scripture" going forward.  We see that they considered these writings "Scripture" in the above passages and we know that they considered all Scripture to be God breathed...sooooo.....you follow me.

They knew that the old covenant was gone and a new had arrived.  They had been commanded in Matthew 28:16:

_	Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

(Matthew 28:19-20 ESV)_

They had been commanded to teach all that Jesus had commanded.  Why?  Because it was new to those who would hear it.  What they were writing was the direct commission of Christ to those he commanded to spread the gospel.  From what I can tell, they knew very well that what they wrote would be passed from generation to generation of new believers, or as long as it took for Christ to return.

They had been promised that Jesus would be with them to the end of the age and he promised that the HS would be with them when he left.  Why would we not assume, then, that those who had been hand picked by Christ to spread the gospel were not inspired by that same HS (who, remember, is with them always) in writting the letters and teachings that they sent out to various churches and peoples?


----------



## Ole Crip (Sep 20, 2011)

JFS said:


> I really want to understand this but the christians won't explain it to me in the other forum so maybe you guys can help.  What's the best argument for the claim the bible is the inerrant word of god?  Jesus didn't hand it to someone and say "here's the word", so it's a weaker claim than even the mormans and the muslims.  And you can't claim the bible itself as the authority, that would be entirely circular.  And I don't see how you can claim reason or logic, because on independent assesment you'd never buy all the wacky stuff unless you already believe.
> 
> So what's left? Tradition?  Intuition?   I really don't get it.


Do you believe in GOD?I believe that man has twisted GOD's words.How many churches were there in the beginning?Look at oyr churches today how many dominations are there?Is this of GOD or man?If I came to your church in a ballcap shorts and a camo shirt what would people say?If I told you I have been attacked by demons in my sleep what would u think?If I told you I believed in speaking of the tongues how would you respond?If I told you I have seen a demon speak through a woman what would you say?Thats right you would probably have something negative to say if its not of your beliefs then its not right. If I came to your church dressed like a bum you would turn me away.Is this of God I think we need to focus on God and stop focusing on ourselves.The bible could be corrupted by man we corrupt everything else.Faith is what we have and that is all we need.Although the bible does tell us the life of Jesus the wrath of God and it shows us the love God has for us.I am sorry I am loosing myself what I am saying do not believe in man for he is corrupt.Have Faith for Faith is all we need.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 20, 2011)

emerson said:


> Do you believe in GOD?I believe that man has twisted GOD's words.How many churches were there in the beginning?Look at oyr churches today how many dominations are there?Is this of GOD or man?If I came to your church in a ballcap shorts and a camo shirt what would people say?If I told you I have been attacked by demons in my sleep what would u think?If I told you I believed in speaking of the tongues how would you respond?If I told you I have seen a demon speak through a woman what would you say?Thats right you would probably have something negative to say if its not of your beliefs then its not right. If I came to your church dressed like a bum you would turn me away.Is this of God I think we need to focus on God and stop focusing on ourselves.The bible could be corrupted by man we corrupt everything else.Faith is what we have and that is all we need.Although the bible does tell us the life of Jesus the wrath of God and it shows us the love God has for us.I am sorry I am loosing myself what I am saying do not believe in man for he is corrupt. Have Faith for Faith is all we need.



OK.  I will dismiss everything you just said.


----------



## rjcruiser (Sep 20, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> Oh boy...here's an answer...not sure how much time I'll be able to give this one as the next week or two is going to be busy...but here goes.
> 
> Biggest thing for me is the prophecy that it holds in it.  Lots of prophecy in the OT that has already been fulfilled.  Not one of them incorrect.
> 
> ...



Just because my earlier post seemed to get lost...I'll shamelessly quote it again for all to see 



JB0704 said:


> My point was that the Bible, as we understand it, was not conceptualized when the letters were written.  I doubt Paul believed he was writing for the next several thousands of years of generations.  They thought, from my understanding, that Jesus would return in their lifetime, just like every generation of Christians since.



Really?  You don't think Paul knew it at the time that he was a messenger of God?  If he didn't know, surely God knew that II Tim 3:16 would be a part of the Bible and with his inspiration had Paul write it.

Why limit God's power and sovereignty?


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 20, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> Really?  You don't think Paul knew it at the time that he was a messenger of God?  If he didn't know, surely God knew that II Tim 3:16 would be a part of the Bible and with his inspiration had Paul write it.
> 
> Why limit God's power and sovereignty?



I have asked this a few times before, and nobody answers it......

Do you think that the Holy spirit reminded Paul to ask Timothy to bring him his coat (2 Tim. 4:12), and to tell Pricilla and Aquilla "hello?" (2 Tim. 4:19).  These verses are my first clue that Paul did not know his letter was going to be part of the Bible as we know it.


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 20, 2011)

...but do you, somehow, make a major distinction between Scripture and Bible?  Kind of like square and rectangle, right?

He knew that what he was writing would be considered Scripture, no?


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 20, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> ...but do you, somehow, make a distinction between Scripture and Bible?
> 
> He knew that what he was writing would be considered Scripture, no?



Are you going to ever answer the question?  Do you believe the Holy Spirit told Paul, so that all future generations could hear, to remind Timothy to bring him his coat? (2 Tim. 4:13)


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 20, 2011)

Just like Jesus chose to use the disciples to spread the gospel even though he stated that "all authority in heaven and on earth" had been granted him (meaning...I can do this however I want to!)....God chose these men to author what would be considered NT scripture, inspired them and claims through them that it is his Word.  Many of them were taught directly by Christ himself.  

As I posted above...they were aware that what they were writing down was going to be understood as God's message to the recipient.


BTW...you're doing a bang up job of attempting to invalidating scriptural authority here in the AAA forum.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 20, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> As I posted above...they were aware that what they were writing down was going to be understood as God's message to the recipient.
> 
> 
> BTW...you're doing a bang up job of attempting to invalidating scriptural authority here in the AAA forum.



They did not know it was going to be "The Bible."  It was an instructional letter to a young evangelist, pertinent to the mission, but also inclusive of personal anecdotes. 

That does not invalidate scripture HF.  It has nothing to do with validity.  Paul did not have to know he was writing the Bible for him to have written the Bible.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 20, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Just like Jesus chose to use the disciples to spread the gospel even though he stated that "all authority in heaven and on earth" had been granted him (meaning...I can do this however I want to!)....God chose these men to author what would be considered NT scripture, inspired them and claims through them that it is his Word.  Many of them were taught directly by Christ himself.
> 
> As I posted above...they were aware that what they were writing down was going to be understood as God's message to the recipient.
> 
> ...



You sound like my dad when he said "Stop asking questions and just believe."   That's when I learned to recognize the stink of dead rat.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 20, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> You sound like my dad when he said "Stop asking questions and just believe."   That's when I learned to recognize the stink of dead rat.



I don't agree on the dead rat (I am a believer), but, I do think that an open and honest discussion is good.  Any time I discuss this stuff I run into walls, where folks give their opinions the weight and authority of God.  It appears that either I have to agree, or I am insulting God or challenging God's authority, neither of which is true.  I am questioning man's view of things.

I do believe Paul intended for his writings to carry a message from "God."  My only point was that the authors did not know it would be part of the Bible as we know it.  To me, it changes nothing one way or the other.


----------



## rjcruiser (Sep 20, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> I have asked this a few times before, and nobody answers it......
> 
> Do you think that the Holy spirit reminded Paul to ask Timothy to bring him his coat (2 Tim. 4:12), and to tell Pricilla and Aquilla "hello?" (2 Tim. 4:19).  These verses are my first clue that Paul did not know his letter was going to be part of the Bible as we know it.



Haven't seen the question before...but I'll answer.

Why not?  Why do you not think that this would be included in the scripture.  Sure, that section is his personal remarks, but even those have spiritual meaning.  Just in reading through those verses in 2 Tim 4, I can pull several things out.

Also, how would you like to be Alexander the Metal Worker?  Go down as a person who did the apostle Paul great harm for all history.



JB0704 said:


> They did not know it was going to be "The Bible."  It was an instructional letter to a young evangelist, pertinent to the mission, but also inclusive of personal anecdotes.



Huge assumption you're making there.

Are personal anecdotes not important?  Again, even they can give spiritual insight and direction.


----------



## rjcruiser (Sep 20, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> You sound like my dad when he said "Stop asking questions and just believe."   That's when I learned to recognize the stink of dead rat.



We should always ask questions.

Look at the Bereans...they studied the scriptures to see if what Paul was saying was true.  Acts 17:11.

We should do the same.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 20, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> Also, how would you like to be Alexander the Metal Worker?  Go down as a person who did the apostle Paul great harm for all history.



Yea, I have thought about that many times.  Good point.





rjcruiser said:


> Huge assumption you're making there.
> 
> Are personal anecdotes not important?  Again, even they can give spiritual insight and direction.



The involvement of personal anecdotes tells me it was addressed to a person.  No assumption there.  I never said they were useless anecdotes.  I don't understand why y'all feel he had to know it was going to be immortalized in the Bible in order for it to be valid.  There's a bunch of good stuff in Timothy.  There's also personal anecdotes.  Neither statement detracts from the validity.


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 20, 2011)

> That does not invalidate scripture HF. It has nothing to do with validity. Paul did not have to know he was writing the Bible for him to have written the Bible.



I'll say it for the third time now.  He did not know he was writing the "Bible".  But he knew very well that what he was writing would be considered God's Word to the recipient and that it would be considered "new" Scripture.  I showed that above (you've just chosen to ignore it).

If you want to differentiate between Bible and Scripture, that's fine.  I'll give you that there is kind of a difference.  But it's only the difference between a rectangle and a square.  I hope we agree that everything in the Bible is considered scripture, right?


----------



## rjcruiser (Sep 20, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> The involvement of personal anecdotes tells me it was addressed to a person.  No assumption there.  I never said they were useless anecdotes.  I don't understand why y'all feel he had to know it was going to be immortalized in the Bible in order for it to be valid.  There's a bunch of good stuff in Timothy.  There's also personal anecdotes.  Neither statement detracts from the validity.



Right...I'm not saying that you don't think it is valid.

I'm just saying that when Paul penned II Tim 3:16, the Lord knew it was going to be a part of the Bible and meant for it to encompass all of scripture.

Kinda like Joseph's brothers throwing him in the pit and selling him to slave traders.

They meant it for evil, but God meant it for good.



I think of it this way.  The quote...20/20 hindsight...well, for God, its 20/20 foresight.  Changes everything when you realize/believe that.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 20, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> I hope we agree that everything in the Bible is considered scripture, right?



How are we defining scripture?  Follow me here......

.....There are small portions of the NT where Paul specificaly states that what he is saying is his thoughts, not God's.  I do not know what the traditional definition of scripture is, I had always assumed that it referenced "Bible verses."


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 20, 2011)

Do you agree that Paul and the others were sent out from Christ with his full authority?


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 20, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Do you agree that Paul and the others were sent out from Christ with his full authority?



Yes.


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 20, 2011)

So, then, if Paul gives his opinion on a matter of spirtual importance and he's writing a letter to a group of believers...does it follow that he's writing under the authority given him and considering the fact that what he is saying will be regarded as "from God"?


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 20, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> So, then, if Paul gives his opinion on a matter of spirtual importance and he's writing a letter to a group of believers...does it follow that he's writing under the authority given him and considering the fact that what he is saying will be regarded as "from God"?



But it does not mean God was the author.  Otherwise, why would he make the distinction?

What I am having difficulty with is why verses like 2 Tim. 4:13 have to be "God's writing."  I don't see how that affects anything.  It gives us an insight into the personality of the author of the letter.  It does not change "the message" or the authority of the letter.


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 20, 2011)

God didn't physically write any of it.  

What do you think about the passages that refer to NT writing as Scripture?  The authors seemed to know that what they were writing was Scripture.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 20, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> God didn't physically write any of it.
> 
> What do you think about the passages that refer to NT writing as Scripture?  The authors seemed to know that what they were writing was Scripture.



Honestly, I read your previous post, though you claim I ignored it, and have not thought through it yet.  I had always been under the assumption that NT references to scripture were relevant to the Jewish cannon.  So, it's something worth looking into.


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 20, 2011)

I think it's very interesting and most people don't know about it.  Heck, I didn't realize it until recently.  But it does seem to cross the perceived NT/OT gap in terms of scripture being God "breathed".


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 20, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> ..... in terms of scripture being God "breathed".



....or "inspired," depending on which translation you read.  I guess that one verse is argument enough for finding a good translation.


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 20, 2011)

...but we're not allowed to talk about that!  Hush yo mouth!


----------



## jmharris23 (Sep 20, 2011)

JFS said:


> But there you go illustrating my point.   How can you say you can show biblical authority but first you have to believe in the bible?



I didn't mean that to be frustrating or sarcastic. What I meant is the only way I know to "prove" biblical authority or inerrancy is by using the bible. 

But if you don't believe the bible then using it to prove a point would be an exercise in futility.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Sep 20, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Are you going to ever answer the question?  Do you believe the Holy Spirit told Paul, so that all future generations could hear, to remind Timothy to bring him his coat? (2 Tim. 4:13)



Inspired


----------



## Greaserbilly (Sep 20, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> Most trust the bible to be 100% God's word to man. I used to believe this until I had read it 1000 times and begin to see conflicts. My faith is stronger now than then. My faith is not in "the bible", instead, it is in the gospel story that was handed down as best they could. Find mistakes and contridictions, no problem, does not weaken my faith at all because it is not in the inerrancy of it.



The Bible itself makes no claims to inerrancy, but instead having been inspired by God and good to study for inspiration and guidance.

If you're looking for the book that was supposedly dictated letter by letter to a human agent and written down as the actual Word of God, you're looking at the Koran.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Sep 20, 2011)

So did Paul consider that he was speaking inspired words from God? No. Did he think that his letters would become scripture? No. : 1 Cor 7:10, "Now to the unmarried and the widow _*I say*_.......10 To the married, I give this command, _*not I, but the L*_ord.......12 To the rest , I say this, _*I, not the Lord*_..... Interesting, so we see Paul giving instruction about what God says and what God does not say. So Paul clearly does not consider every thing he writes as if it were from God. Did he consider that it would ever become scripture?  Col 4:16"after this has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans and that in turn you read the letter from Laodecia." Seems his mindset was not worldwide


----------



## jmharris23 (Sep 20, 2011)

Greaserbilly said:


> The Bible itself makes no claims to inerrancy, but instead having been inspired by God and good to study for inspiration and guidance.
> 
> If you're looking for the book that was supposedly dictated letter by letter to a human agent and written down as the actual Word of God, you're looking at the Koran.



Well somebody correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't most Christians agree that if the bible was inspired by a perfect and inerrant God and the message given to men to be written down, then the bible itself is inerrant?


----------



## rjcruiser (Sep 20, 2011)

jmharris23 said:


> Well somebody correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't most Christians agree that if the bible was inspired by a perfect and inerrant God and the message given to men to be written down, then the bible itself is inerrant?



A+B=C


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Sep 20, 2011)

Did God inspire the errors?


----------



## Greaserbilly (Sep 21, 2011)

jmharris23 said:


> Well somebody correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't most Christians agree that if the bible was inspired by a perfect and inerrant God and the message given to men to be written down, then the bible itself is inerrant?



Ezekiel 20:25
King James Bible
Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live

Jesus taught by parables - stories that were FICTIONAL but meant to illustrate a given point. And even then, he often had to explain what they meant to his own closest followers.

And I mean, hey, even when explicit laws were given, the innate "lawyer" in us decided to work them to our own advantage - Jesus complained that rabbis had worked out how to use inheritance laws to rip off little old ladies of the money that would allow them to stay alive - and was angered that the idea of keeping idols and such on currency out of the temples had been turned into a moneymaking venture and ripoff.

Anyone thinking that the Bible is simply a textbook to be read like a textbook, with certain key areas memorized is to be missing the point. Written by human beings, assembled by human beings - of course there's going to be a detail wrong here and a contradictory passage somewhere else.

The overarching message in the Bible is this. In the beginning, mankind fell from grace - arguing over whether or not there were other people than Eve and her two sons (how did Cain take wives? herp derp) is not the point.

Then mankind decided to get rules, and make rules, to be holy. If you wore a certain kind of hat, didn't eat pig, didn't lie, didn't beat slaves too bad, etc. that followed the law. Hey, it's what we wanted, and what we got. And as Jesus pointed out, it didn't make us any better as people.

If you want to kill that guy but are only stopped because it's forbidden, that really doesn't help your soul out much. Better to be a person who doesn't want to kill anyone, even if it WAS permitted.

God himself came down, appeared before people and LIVED a certain way. Oh sure he broke the rules. Ate food you weren't supposed to, healed the demon possessed on the wrong day - but he lived a gentle life by example, saying the rule is this - treat someone else as you would want to be treated. And BAM, there goes the "wiggle room". Noone wants to be cheated, murdered, raped, discriminated against, hit, lied about, lied to - etc. but they might want to be healed on a Sunday or eat food that hasn't been blessed by a rabbi.

Then the Republicans of the day killed him, and the problems really started. In between being set on fire and nailed to crosses, devoid of any real Gospel but believing in any fragments of any books they could find, Christians argued over whether Christianity was Judaism 2.0 or some wonderful new thing.

Eventually "wonderful new thing" won out - you can't put a new wine in an old skin.

The OT and the NT are there for the same reasons history books are. To learn where we came from, what was tried - what works and what doesn't.

And hey, have YOU ever let a kid make some kind of mistake in order for the eventual lesson to be internalized far more than a lecture would ever do?


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 21, 2011)

> Did he think that his letters would become scripture? No.





> Did he consider that it would ever become scripture? Col 4:16"after this has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans and that in turn you read the letter from Laodecia." Seems his mindset was not worldwide




Why would you post this and answer it definitively, when it's been shown even in this thread that NT writings were already considered Scripture as they were being written in several instances?

They knew very well that what they were writing would be considered as if it came from Christ to the recipients and they considered the writings of other apostles "Scripture".


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 21, 2011)

> Did God inspire the errors?



Which ones in particular?


----------



## jmharris23 (Sep 21, 2011)

Well I'll just have to agree to disagree and move on out of this one....everyone have fun now


----------



## Greaserbilly (Sep 21, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Which ones in particular?



Did Jesus cleanse the temple twice? That's one that causes the literalists to change the subject, QUICKLY.

In what hour did Jesus die?http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html


----------



## rjcruiser (Sep 21, 2011)

Greaserbilly said:


> Did Jesus cleanse the temple twice? That's one that causes the literalists to change the subject, QUICKLY.
> 
> In what hour did Jesus die?http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html





How about posting some rather than some website that tries to make mountains out of mole hills?

Really...God is both a God of Peace and a God of War.  Is that hard to grasp that he can be both?


----------



## centerpin fan (Sep 21, 2011)

Greaserbilly said:


> Then the Republicans of the day killed him ...



Oh, please. 

Herod tried to kill Him as a newborn, so I guess Herod was a Democrat.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 21, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> Oh, please.
> 
> Herod tried to kill Him as a newborn, so I guess Herod was a Democrat.



How many modern Christians would make laws from the Bible, then enforce them at the point of a gun (thanks to Boortz, who I think lifted it from Ayn Rand, for that nugget)?

.......and who do they typically vote for?


----------



## centerpin fan (Sep 21, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> How many modern Christians would make laws from the Bible, then enforce them at the point of a gun ...



Whatever laws you're talking about, I would waive them all in a heartbeat if we could dump _Roe v. Wade _on the judicial scrap heap of history where it belongs.


----------



## centerpin fan (Sep 21, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> .......and who do they typically vote for?



People vote for politicians who support their values.  Since the Dems are at war with my values, I don't vote for them.


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 21, 2011)

> Did Jesus cleanse the temple twice? That's one that causes the literalists to change the subject, QUICKLY.



That's not that tough to deal with I don't think.  I suppose if you're an Erhman fan and believe what he writes, then each of these is "insurmountable".

Did he cleanse the temple twice?  Why not?  He certainly would have visited the temple more than once in the three years of his ministry and there is clear indication that the religious leaders were afraid to arrest him early on in his ministry for fear of the crowds that were amazed by him.  There are details in John's account that are not found in the other three accounts.  So, it's not a stretch to say that this is a different event.

There's also a possibility that, because John's gospel is not entirely chronological, he (or the HS) chose to put it at the beginning for thematic reasons.  

Which is the truth?  I'll be honest.  I don't know.  But you've got to be incredibly narrow-focussed to assume that because two events seem to be listed that they must contradict each other.  I don't see why believers would run and hide on that issue.  The answer, IMO, is "We don't know".  But does that mean that there is an "error"?  That's a stretch at best...

_Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.
(John 21:25 ESV)_

If they all wrote about everything he did...nobody would be able to carry a Bible around.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 21, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> Whatever laws you're talking about, I would waive them all in a heartbeat if we could dump _Roe v. Wade _on the judicial scrap heap of history where it belongs.



We have discussed the laws I am talking about a bunch, so I will not dig into that.

Roe v. Wade could be overturned if it wasn't argued from a morality perspective.  The judicial philosophy behind the ruling is abstract at best.  That needs to be attacked with science and law, not the Bible.  That ruling is also a contradiction of the recent health care bill (right to privacy).  The biggest problem with overturning Roe v. Wade is the religious zealots who are on our side, ditch them and use reason.

I don't vote for values, because they change over time (prohibition?), I vote for human/constitutional rights.  Those can be applied universally and evenly.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Sep 21, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Which ones in particular?


There are so many that I hate to enter into this


----------



## rjcruiser (Sep 21, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> There are so many that I hate to enter into this





classic.


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 21, 2011)

I know man.  There are so many errors an inconsistencies I have a hard time keeping up with them.  It's a wonder there's anything trustworthy in there.





(Note from management: please read with an extreme degree of sarcasm)


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Sep 21, 2011)

Which is correct John 20:2 where Mary came running to Peter saying, "they have taken the Lord from the tomb and we don't know what they have done with him.---or----Mk 16:7 The angel told Mary "He has risen. He is not here. But go tell the disciples and Peter, He is going ahead of you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.-------------------------------------Matthews genealogy account; Someone thought that it would look more believable if they used a 14, 14, 14 generations. Man did that, not God. The fact is that Matthews genology is incorrect. Three have been left out. Jehoram, Ahaziah, Joash,Amaziah, Uzziah. Those highlighted are missing from Matthew. Proof that the 14,14,14 was not inspired by God. See 2 Chron 21-26---------------------- Matthew incorrectly quoted Jeremiah in 27:9 when it is actually Zec 11 12+13-----------------------MK 2:26,quotes Abiathar as high priest when it is actually Ahimelech 1Sam21------------Jesus crucified at the third hour, 9 amMk 15:25 but Jesus is in his trial at the 6th hour, 12 noon, John 19:14. No need to go any farther. Now it's time for "Shoot the messenger"


----------



## atlashunter (Sep 21, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> Which is correct John 20:2 where Mary came running to Peter saying, "they have taken the Lord from the tomb and we don't know what they have done with him.---or----Mk 16:7 The angel told Mary "He has risen. He is not here. But go tell the disciples and Peter, He is going ahead of you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.-------------------------------------Matthews genealogy account; Someone thought that it would look more believable if they used a 14, 14, 14 generations. Man did that, not God. The fact is that Matthews genology is incorrect. Three have been left out. Jehoram, Ahaziah, Joash,Amaziah, Uzziah. Those highlighted are missing from Matthew. Proof that the 14,14,14 was not inspired by God. See 2 Chron 21-26---------------------- Matthew incorrectly quoted Jeremiah in 27:9 when it is actually Zec 11 12+13-----------------------MK 2:26,quotes Abiathar as high priest when it is actually Ahimelech 1Sam21------------Jesus crucified at the third hour, 9 amMk 15:25 but Jesus is in his trial at the 6th hour, 12 noon, John 19:14. No need to go any farther. Now it's time for "Shoot the messenger"


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Sep 21, 2011)

atlashunter said:


>


I see your quote from Thomas Jefferson, I share many of his religious beliefs. Mainly Unitarian


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 22, 2011)

> Which is correct John 20:2 where Mary came running to Peter saying, "they have taken the Lord from the tomb and we don't know what they have done with him.---or----Mk 16:7 The angel told Mary "He has risen. He is not here. But go tell the disciples and Peter, He is going ahead of you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.-------------------------------------Matthews genealogy account; Someone thought that it would look more believable if they used a 14, 14, 14 generations. Man did that, not God. The fact is that Matthews genology is incorrect. Three have been left out. Jehoram, Ahaziah, Joash,Amaziah, Uzziah. Those highlighted are missing from Matthew. Proof that the 14,14,14 was not inspired by God. See 2 Chron 21-26---------------------- Matthew incorrectly quoted Jeremiah in 27:9 when it is actually Zec 11 12+13-----------------------MK 2:26,quotes Abiathar as high priest when it is actually Ahimelech 1Sam21------------Jesus crucified at the third hour, 9 amMk 15:25 but Jesus is in his trial at the 6th hour, 12 noon, John 19:14. No need to go any farther. Now it's time for "Shoot the messenger"



I'll be honest....I can't read this the way you wrote it.  If you care to clarify, I'll see what I can do.

But I gather that your requirement for "inspired" is "perfect sychronization"....and that's just beyond what I can comprehend as logical.

If we think in terms of highschool history books.  No two tell the exact same story or details, but the are all factual (well...you get what I'm saying.  I know liberal bias and all that).

If the gospels all told the exact same story in the exact same way....then we would only have need for one gospel.  Right?

Inspired does not required perfect alignment.  I don't see how you get there.  Can it not be inspired and have some unclear details?  It was absolutely written down by man.  It was, without question, inspired by God.  You cannot read scripture and deny that.  It is not just something randomly written by man.

I don't buy, either, that God literally told them what to write word for word.  But, if it's inspired (and it is), then there is nothing in there that was not "approved" of by the one who inspired.  

With the all-powerful Google...I promise you there is just as powerful counter out there to any objection you can bring here.  I guess my question is, do you believe that The Bible is the Word of God or just some history book that we learn good lessons from?  As a believer, I don't see how you can reconcile the second position.

Why didn't you address my response to your first "error"?


----------



## atlashunter (Sep 22, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> I'll be honest....I can't read this the way you wrote it.  If you care to clarify, I'll see what I can do.
> 
> But I gather that your requirement for "inspired" is "perfect sychronization"....and that's just beyond what I can comprehend as logical.
> 
> ...



If one history book says Robert Kennedy was shot on one day and time and another book says he was shot on a different day and time are both books factual?

If one book gives one genealogy and another book gives a contradictory genealogy are both books factual?


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 22, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> I don't buy, either, that God literally told them what to write word for word.



Uh, oh, HF.....that position tends to make a few folks mad... 



Huntinfool said:


> With the all-powerful Google...I promise you there is just as powerful counter out there to any objection you can bring here.



Most objections I have seen have been in an attempt to make it (the entire Bible) literal.


----------



## atlashunter (Sep 22, 2011)

When you look at the history of how the bible came to be does that strike you as the best an omnipotent being could do to transmit a message to mankind that is so vital to our eternal futures?


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 22, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> When you look at the history of how the bible came to be does that strike you as the best an omnipotent being could do to transmit a message to mankind that is so vital to our eternal futures?



No, but sending a talking donkey to all of our houses would seem to elliminate the free-will choice.


----------



## atlashunter (Sep 22, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> No, but sending a talking donkey to all of our houses would seem to elliminate the free-will choice.



Actually I think it would be more in keeping with the idea of free will to eliminate all doubts and confusion about the choice that is to be made. Delivering a message in a way that is indistinguishable from other bogus messages and in a way that raises doubts is hardly a way to get an honest decision from someone.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 22, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Actually I think it would be more in keeping with the idea of free will to eliminate all doubts and confusion about the choice that is to be made. Delivering a message in a way that is indistinguishable from other bogus messages and in a way that raises doubts is hardly a way to get an honest decision from someone.



Thats certainly one way to look at it.  But, what if the Bible is a revelation, and man has complicated it to the point of making it difficult to accept?  

Let's look at it this way, and I have brought this up before, but it is helpful for me.....the movie 300.  It is about a battle we have very little evidence of or witness to.  The primary source is Herodutus.  We all believe this battle happened, but the facts of the battle are skewed by perception. We do not throw the battle out with the inconsistencies of the testimony, we just wonder if the Persian army really drank that river dry.


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 22, 2011)

> When you look at the history of how the bible came to be does that strike you as the best an omnipotent being could do to transmit a message to mankind that is so vital to our eternal futures?



How the books in the Bible came to be or how the Canon was put together?

The books in the Bible came to be because God inspired the authors.  Honestly, I know some stuff about the counsels that determined what went where.  But I don't know enough about them to comment well.  Is there some question that perhaps something got "left out"?  I'm not above saying that's possible.  

But, no, I don't buy that something is in there that isn't supposed to be.


----------



## atlashunter (Sep 22, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Thats certainly one way to look at it.  But, what if the Bible is a revelation, and man has complicated it to the point of making it difficult to accept?



That's little consolation for the poor soul that had no part in complicating the message but still burns forever as a result of it. Seems to me an all powerful all knowing deity could do better.




JB0704 said:


> Let's look at it this way, and I have brought this up before, but it is helpful for me.....the movie 300.  It is about a battle we have very little evidence of or witness to.  The primary source is Herodutus.  We all believe this battle happened, but the facts of the battle are skewed by perception. We do not throw the battle out with the inconsistencies of the testimony, we just wonder if the Persian army really drank that river dry.



Sure and if we consider the bible for the imperfect man made book that it is then you have a point. But that doesn't square with the claim that it is the perfect message from the creator of the universe and that eternal fates hang in the balance. I've never heard any claim that of the 300 story.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 22, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> That's little consolation for the poor soul that had no part in complicating the message but still burns forever as a result of it. Seems to me an all powerful all knowing deity could do better.




For my thoughts here, please see the salvation thread I started in the SD&S.  I don't think the poor soul necessarily burns.  Perhaps another believer can give you a good debate on this one.




atlashunter said:


> Sure and if we consider the bible for the imperfect man made book that it is then you have a point. But that doesn't square with the claim that it is the perfect message from the creator of the universe and that eternal fates hang in the balance. I've never heard any claim that of the 300 story.



No, but they claim it happened.  That's my only point. And that is really why I can believe Jesus was a literal figure. Inerrancy is a different debate all together.  I don't accept the entire Bible as literal.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Sep 22, 2011)

Hello Huntinfool. could you point out what I overlooked that you mentioned something about "error". I don't exactly call it inspired. My reason for being uncomfortable with that usuage is that if God had done it, it would be perfect. I think the variances prove that it was written generations later. For example, the book of Matthew was probably written years later, maybe generations later by those who had heard Matthew tell it. That's why it is actually called "The gospel according to Matthew". No one titles a book he wrote like that. So Matthews stories were probably handed down until one day someone said we had better write this down. This would explain the differences in the 4 gospels. Otherwise, if it were 1st hand, we would have to conclude that someone writing was just not truthful or maybe not even present in the things they claimed they saw. So my faith is not based on the inerrancy of the bible. My faith is based on the story within. The story of Jesus that men who penned these writings were motivated by God to do their best in preserving the gospel. The context in the bible is clear to me, and without a doubt, I believe it as truth.


----------



## mtnwoman (Sep 22, 2011)

Maybe I'm just dense, but I don't recall anyone disputing most of the history books that we had in school. I took at least 4 years of history and men wrote those, but never hear anyone disputing things that happened thousands of years ago....according/based just on writings.

I just don't think it's impossible that we have records of all sorts of history and science. But when it comes to the Bible no way any of that could be true, eh? or even recorded correctly? and for heavens sake how is it possible to translate greek or hebrew into english?

Wonder if all the greek, roman, egyptian history was written in english, or could it have been translated by men who were scholars of such?


----------



## mtnwoman (Sep 22, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> That's little consolation for the poor soul that had no part in complicating the message but still burns forever as a result of it. Seems to me an all powerful all knowing deity could do better.



I know how you feel on that. That's why I have a problem with the tulip points of calvinism. At least a couple of the points. 

What chance does man have of even understanding or wanting to understand the bible if we believe that we were prechosen? Where does the hope in Christ go, when we believe in election?

I could try to explain to this poster that Christ died for us all and you start there and go from there and the Holy Spirit will help you discern the Word.  But if I believed in election, I'd be a liar by telling him that.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Sep 22, 2011)

mtnwoman said:


> Maybe I'm just dense, but I don't recall anyone disputing most of the history books that we had in school. I took at least 4 years of history and men wrote those, but never hear anyone disputing things that happened thousands of years ago....according/based just on writings.
> 
> I just don't think it's impossible that we have records of all sorts of history and science. But when it comes to the Bible no way any of that could be true, eh? or even recorded correctly? and for heavens sake how is it possible to translate greek or hebrew into english?
> 
> Wonder if all the greek, roman, egyptian history was written in english, or could it have been translated by men who were scholars of such?


 I understand your viewpoint. It's pure. But the reason that people don't know the history of the bible or Christianity is that it's full of corruptness. Take my word for it. It's completly full of oppression, corruptness and persecution. That does not mean that the gospel is not true. It's just a hindrance as most athiest know more about these things than Christians do. Those who decided which books would be canon were certainly not Godly men. I could go into detail about these things, having studied them but realize that most here are not ready to deal with it.


----------



## mtnwoman (Sep 22, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> I understand your viewpoint. It's pure. But the reason that people don't know the history of the bible or Christianity is that it's full of corruptness. Take my word for it. It's completly full of oppression, corruptness and persecution. That does not mean that the gospel is not true. It's just a hindrance as most athiest know more about these things than Christians do. Those who decided which books would be canon were certainly not Godly men. I could go into detail about these things, having studied them but realize that most here are not ready to deal with it.



I certainly agree. The OT is hard to take. And it's hard to believe sometimes that the God of the OT is the same God of the NT....I've said why God why? a million times about things in the OT.

I sometimes think that the muslims are still stuck in the OT, if truly Esau basically was the founder of the religion. And because of that it's easy to conceive of the beliefs the muslims proclaim to be true. They just never made it to the NT. Jacob continued on with the God of Abraham and Esau took what he knew up until the point he split and built another religion on it. I haven't read a lot of the Koran but it appears that a lot of the first chapters are very similar to the bible...the parts that esau took with him.

I dunno, just ramblin'


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Sep 22, 2011)

mtnwoman said:


> I certainly agree. The OT is hard to take. And it's hard to believe sometimes that the God of the OT is the same God of the NT....I've said why God why? a million times about things in the OT.
> 
> I sometimes think that the muslims are still stuck in the OT, if truly Esau basically was the founder of the religion. And because of that it's easy to conceive of the beliefs the muslims proclaim to be true. They just never made it to the NT. Jacob continued on with the God of Abraham and Esau took what he knew up until the point he split and built another religion on it. I haven't read a lot of the Koran but it appears that a lot of the first chapters are very similar to the bible...the parts that esau took with him.
> 
> I dunno, just ramblin'


We are misunderstanding each other. I was talking about the 3rd century after Jesus and how they made it a capital punishment to not believe what Constantine had decided was orthodox. They killed many by unthinkable suffering and made it punishable by death to have any literature that stood opposed to what they deemed as orthodox. It's an interesting study but shocking the things done in Jesus name. This is my last comment pertaining to this topic. People will search it out as they are ready. I don't wish to start that search prematurely


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 23, 2011)

> Hello Huntinfool. could you point out what I overlooked that you mentioned something about "error". I don't exactly call it inspired. My reason for being uncomfortable with that usuage is that if God had done it, it would be perfect.



No....if he had physically written it and delivered it, then it would be perfect.  If he inspired it, he inspired humans to write his message down.  




> I think the variances prove that it was written generations later.  For example, the book of Matthew was probably written years later, maybe generations later by those who had heard Matthew tell it.



I won't dispute that it's possible.  But, quite literally, thousands of highly studied biblical scholars disagree with you...and Ehrman.  Not that the majority is always right.  But I'll stick with the majority on this issue.



> That's why it is actually called "The gospel according to Matthew". No one titles a book he wrote like that.



The author didn't title the book....even if it wasn't Matthew.  He didn't include chapter breaks or verses either.



> So Matthews stories were probably handed down until one day someone said we had better write this down. This would explain the differences in the 4 gospels.



The differences are best explained by four different perspectives and four different purposes.




> Otherwise, if it were 1st hand, we would have to conclude that someone writing was just not truthful or maybe not even present in the things they claimed they saw.



Well....I told you why the temple cleansing doesn't seem to be as inconsistent as you think it is.  Why do I have to conclude that someone is lieing?



> My faith is based on the story within. The story of Jesus that men who penned these writings were motivated by God to do their best in preserving the gospel. The context in the bible is clear to me, and without a doubt, I believe it as truth.



You believe it as truth but..."someone writing was just not truthful"?  That doesn't jive.

If you don't believe what's in there is 100% accurate, then how can you be sure Jesus even existed?  There is very little evidence outside of the Bible of his existence and there is even less evidence of any miracles or a ressurection.  How can you sync your belief that it's not 100% accurate or inspired with the belief that the parts about Jesus doing unbelievable and physically impossible thing are, somehow, true?  I mean, the people that wrote it down weren't even there to see it, right?  They were just writing down what generations before them told them was true.....right?  Not very reliable intel if you ask me.

It would be like a multi-generational game of "Telephone"....there's no way it's even kind of accurate if it's generational oral transmission written down hundreds of years later.


----------



## atlashunter (Sep 23, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> I won't dispute that it's possible.  But, quite literally, thousands of highly studied biblical scholars disagree with you...and Ehrman.  Not that the majority is always right.  But I'll stick with the majority on this issue.



What is the majority view on the dating of Matthew? Please cite your source.


----------



## centerpin fan (Sep 23, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> What is the majority view on the dating of Matthew? Please cite your source.



This site shows various opinions on the date.  Between 80-100 seems to be their conclusion.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/matthew.html

I have seen it dated in the 70-75 AD range but don't have a ready source for that.


----------



## atlashunter (Sep 23, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> This site shows various opinions on the date.  Between 80-100 seems to be their conclusion.
> 
> http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/matthew.html
> 
> I have seen it dated in the 70-75 AD range but don't have a ready source for that.



Ehrman has cited that most scholars date Mark to around 65 or 70 AD with Luke and Matthew coming 10 or 15 years later. So unless HF disagrees with your assessment he is in agreement with both Ehrman and the majority of scholars that Matthew dates to around 75-85 AD, possibly a bit later as your source cites. Let's call it 75-100 AD.

I think 1gr8bldr's original point stands.


----------



## centerpin fan (Sep 23, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> I think 1gr8bldr's original point stands.



Which is what?  

I didn't see 1gr8bldr saying that Matthew is a 2nd century document.  Every reliable source I've ever seen puts it in the late 1st century.


----------



## atlashunter (Sep 23, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> Which is what?
> 
> I didn't see 1gr8bldr saying that Matthew is a 2nd century document.  Every reliable source I've ever seen puts it in the late 1st century.



I didn't see him saying that either. I did see him pointing out it wasn't a first hand account and was written many years later. I think 40-60 years after would back that up.


----------



## centerpin fan (Sep 23, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> I didn't see him saying that either. I did see him pointing out it wasn't a first hand account and was written many years later. I think 40-60 years after would back that up.



I would disagree on the "first hand account" part, but I don't think anybody disagrees on the late 1st century date.


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 23, 2011)

> Ehrman has cited that most scholars date Mark to around 65 or 70 AD with Luke and Matthew coming 10 or 15 years later. So unless HF disagrees with your assessment he is in agreement with both Ehrman and the majority of scholars that Matthew dates to around 75-85 AD, possibly a bit later as your source cites. Let's call it 75-100 AD.





> I think 1gr8bldr's original point stands.



Negative Ghost Rider....the pattern is full.  This is what he said.



> I think the variances prove that it was written generations later.



Generations = possibly hundreds of years.  That is what I was refuting.

He did not place it in the 1st century.  "Generations" in my mind implies hundreds of years.  Did you guys not see that?  That is what I was responding to.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 23, 2011)

A generation is about 20-25years.


----------



## atlashunter (Sep 23, 2011)

Hey HF, you forgot the next sentence. I wonder why???



> For example, the book of Matthew was probably written years later, maybe generations later by those who had heard Matthew tell it.



"Years later, maybe generations later by those who had heard Matthew tell it"

Think 40 to 70 years later qualifies as years later? Maybe generations later in a world where the average life expectancy was probably in the 30's? I do. And it is very unlikely that it was written by someone who got the story directly from Matthew. If they had why would they copy so much verbatim from the Gospel of Mark?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Sep 25, 2011)

Just getting back in from the hunt club. My usuage of generations may or may not be correct. But my intentions were that it fit the estimated dating that has been pointed out. But certainly not 100, that would have been called "a century'


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Sep 25, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> No....if he had physically written it and delivered it, then it would be perfect.  If he inspired it, he inspired humans to write his message down.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The temple cleansing conversation must have been with someone else. I have not commented on that.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Sep 25, 2011)

Hello Huntinfool. I gave several "errors", there are many more. Those like Matthew incorrectly quoting Jermiah are simply errors. No problem there. But one of the others, the resurection account, The only way I can justify this MAJOR difference is to think that it was a handed down story until it got penned. Always in these instances, the story changes slightly from the original. But if we insist that these gospels were 1st hand written, then I have to conclude that one of the writters was indeed lieing. Lieing that he was present in the circumstances that he witnessed. I should clarify that this is not my belief, that I don't think he is lieing, that I take the other view that his story was slightly changed due to the oral implications. [ Which as a side note, realizing that these stories were losing the original, or realizing the probability that they would, is probably why someone decided we had better record this] There is no way that 2 people present, could give 1st hand, the 2 different recordings we have of the resurrection. One having Mary tell Peter "They have taken away our Lord and we don't know what they have done with him" and the other having the angel at the tomb tell Mary, "Go and tell Peter that he has risen, he has gone ahead just like he said..". I might also point out that the 4 resurrection accounts are full of differences. I only pointed out the one that can not be reconciled.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Sep 25, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> No....if he had physically written it and delivered it, then it would be perfect.  If he inspired it, he inspired humans to write his message down.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I understand your point but I'm not sure you understand mine. Many people lose their faith when they have this mindset after giving in to the fact that the bible does indeed have errors. They then think it is not reliable, therefore they conclude that it must not be true. I like to see people move on from this to a better "faith". Not in the bible but in the story it contains. If someone was going through the local newspaper archives and discovered that the paper had incorrectly cited the 1950 World Series game as having been won, 6 to 4, but we knew that it was actually 6 to 5, would that mean that the game was never played?


----------



## bullethead (Sep 25, 2011)

Does the newspaper claim to be the words of an infallible and inerrant being? Is the newspaper JUST reporting the 1950 world series NOW play by play like they are were to have seen it.... or going by stories from people who were there and taking those stories as the word of a higher power?


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 25, 2011)

bullethead said:


> taking those stories as the word of a higher power?




Its a story about a game, and a story about Jesus. The story of the game was inspired by the game being played.  And the story about Jesus is still inspired by Jesus. Makes sense from that angle.  But, you first have to believe a higher power exists or the rest of it will be nonsense.  And I understand that.

1gr8bldr is correct.  Folks find any inconsistency they can to throw the message.  This is the only historical account I am aware of that folks doubt in its entirety because of differences in testimony, refer to my comments on the battle of thermopylae to kind of see where I am going with that.  Nobody doubts the battle happened, they just wonder if the Persian army really drank the river dry.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Sep 25, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Does the newspaper claim to be the words of an infallible and inerrant being? Is the newspaper JUST reporting the 1950 world series NOW play by play like they are were to have seen it.... or going by stories from people who were there and taking those stories as the word of a higher power?


Your point is very reasonable. My only contention is that I don't suspect that any NT writer actually thought that his letter would become scripture and for sure not the words of a higher power.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 25, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Its a story about a game, and a story about Jesus. The story of the game was inspired by the game being played.  And the story about Jesus is still inspired by Jesus. Makes sense from that angle.  But, you first have to believe a higher power exists or the rest of it will be nonsense.  And I understand that.
> 
> 1gr8bldr is correct.  Folks find any inconsistency they can to throw the message.  This is the only historical account I am aware of that folks doubt in its entirety because of differences in testimony, refer to my comments on the battle of thermopylae to kind of see where I am going with that.  Nobody doubts the battle happened, they just wonder if the Persian army really drank the river dry.



JB, I totally understand "the message". The Bible is not supposed to be a history book though. It is THE only link between humans and God handed down by God. It IS the handbook that religions base their very core upon. It is supposed to be THE written word of a supreme being handed down through his inspired word to guide his believers. To some it IS inerrant and infallible and what you and others believe is not "right". Others believe as you do because you see it for what it is, but still add a higher power to the mix, and yet others see it as you do...a story... but without any higher power involved, just a work of man.
People believe that God is responsible for everything explainable and unexplainable. They believe his capabilities are without limits. They believe that the things on earth and beyond that go on which we cannot fathom are his work....endless possibilities. Then there is the book that he set forth to be penned by his creation  to guide his creation and it is anything and everything but God-like. It was not written by anyone who experienced these happenings directly, it was bits and pieces taken from many stories of the time. IN every part of the world, EVERYBODY was writing of religious stories, miracles, and events. It just so happens that in that region, it was about THAT God. The problem is that the stories in the book are filled with Supreme Being incredible happenings, but the book itself is man made and the greatest miracle( The Supreme Being actually leaving this book for us all in HIS own writing) is no where to be found. Create the Heavens and Earth but leave it up to the most corrupt and fallible creation to write it all down. 
Forgive me for not seeing the existence of a Higher Power except in the imagination of man.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 25, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> Your point is very reasonable. My only contention is that I don't suspect that any NT writer actually thought that his letter would become scripture and for sure not the words of a higher power.



In that part of the world at that time there were many writings about  THAT religion. Some made it in the Big Book, most did not. The ones that went with the storyline did. In every part of the world at any given moment since stories could be told and writings or pictures could be drawn, someone is writing about religion, a religious experience, something they THINK is true, or something that God himself JUST told them. I wonder how many modern writings would have made it in the NT if they were penned back when it was decided on what made it in? Every major religion is in the same boat. They have a "guide book" that is thousands of years old without ANY new interactions of their God since that are significant enough to make it in a new chapter.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 25, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> Your point is very reasonable. My only contention is that I don't suspect that any NT writer actually thought that his letter would become scripture and for sure not the words of a higher power.



Picture our modern televangelists writing down THEIR experiences with God and what God told them, then lets also include their own spin and personal influence in their writings.EVERY Sunday morning they tell their followers how they SPOKE with God!! Now imagine those guys living a few thousand years ago and someone finds those writings...... 

Today we call them fooey artists.....back then with the same following they have today, it is not hard to see how it made the cut and kept going.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 25, 2011)

bullethead said:


> JB, I totally understand "the message". The Bible is not supposed to be a history book though. It is THE only link between humans and God handed down by God. It IS the handbook that religions base their very core upon. It is supposed to be THE written word of a supreme being handed down through his inspired word to guide his believers. To some it IS inerrant and infallible and what you and others believe is not "right". Others believe as you do because you see it for what it is, but still add a higher power to the mix, and yet others see it as you do...a story... but without any higher power involved, just a work of man.
> People believe that God is responsible for everything explainable and unexplainable. They believe his capabilities are without limits. They believe that the things on earth and beyond that go on which we cannot fathom are his work....endless possibilities. Then there is the book that he set forth to be penned by his creation  to guide his creation and it is anything and everything but God-like. It was not written by anyone who experienced these happenings directly, it was bits and pieces taken from many stories of the time. IN every part of the world, EVERYBODY was writing of religious stories, miracles, and events. It just so happens that in that region, it was about THAT God. The problem is that the stories in the book are filled with Supreme Being incredible happenings, but the book itself is man made and the greatest miracle( The Supreme Being actually leaving this book for us all in HIS own writing) is no where to be found. Create the Heavens and Earth but leave it up to the most corrupt and fallible creation to write it all down.
> Forgive me for not seeing the existence of a Higher Power except in the imagination of man.



You statement is based on the idea that the Bible must be inerrant.  To do this, you have to assign characteristics to a god you do not believe in.  So, your conclusion is going to go wherever you want it go based on the premises you build.

Did other regions write about the same God, just a different name?  I don't know if there is a difference between some indian praying to the God of the sun and an ancient man sacrificing a goat.  The point of both actions is the recognition of a higher power.  Which for me, is a logical conclusion.  My faith is not based on intuition or a gut feeling.  You will not agree with my conclusion, and that is fine with me.  I do not need validation.  But I do not suspend reason to get to where I am.

If you cannot fathom the existence of a God, then nothing will make sense because there is no common basis for the two sides.  The principle of each statement made is based on one belief or the other, God, or no God.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 25, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> You statement is based on the idea that the Bible must be inerrant.  To do this, you have to assign characteristics to a god you do not believe in.  So, your conclusion is going to go wherever you want it go based on the premises you build.
> 
> Did other regions write about the same God, just a different name?  I don't know if there is a difference between some indian praying to the God of the sun and an ancient man sacrificing a goat.  The point of both actions is the recognition of a higher power.  Which for me, is a logical conclusion.  My faith is not based on intuition or a gut feeling.  You will not agree with my conclusion, and that is fine with me.  I do not need validation.  But I do not suspend reason to get to where I am.
> 
> If you cannot fathom the existence of a God, then nothing will make sense because there is no common basis for the two sides.  The principle of each statement made is based on one belief or the other, God, or no God.



The difference being, I ONCE had that strong belief in God for 20 years.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 25, 2011)

bullethead said:


> The difference being, I ONCE had that strong belief in God for 20 years.



And I once spent a few years trying to discard it......


----------



## bullethead (Sep 25, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> And I once spent a few years trying to discard it......



And even now I have admitted that my human nature leads me to a slight belief in some sort of unseen power. Some part of me almost wants there to be something more. I do not however think it is anything like in the Bible. It is not a God that I have a problem with, it is his perception in the Bible and by the followers of the Bible and the Bible itself. I can no longer believe in that version of a God. The limitless God of the Bible is held to the limitations of it's writers. I just don't buy into it.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 25, 2011)

bullethead said:


> It is not a God that I have a problem with, it is his perception in the Bible and by the followers of the Bible and the Bible itself. I can no longer believe in that version of a God. The limitless God of the Bible is held to the limitations of it's writers. I just don't buy into it.



I can understand that, and it makes sense.  I think the main reason I wanted to reason God out of the equation is the experiences I had with religious folks growing up.   I eventually figured out that, if God exists, then people have nothing to do with what God is.  He is what he is regardless of what any religion says.....if that makes sense.  That's why I say I am not religious.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Sep 25, 2011)

That is why Jesus came to show us the Father. The perception of God had become a mess. Everything that claimed to be of God was a misrepresentation of God. Especially the leaders. Look at Solomon, he made himself into God. Instead of serving the people, he had them serve him. They were free under his power but were they free from him. His yoke was heavy, Jesus's yoke was light. Jesus showed us what pleased his father thus revealing God's character. I'll just keep rambling so I may as well just quit


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 25, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> The perception of God had become a mess. Everything that claimed to be of God was a misrepresentation of God. Especially the leaders.



Good thoughts man. I believe that Jesus was outside religion, and that is why the religious folks hated him so much.


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 26, 2011)

> A generation is about 20-25years.



Where, exactly, did you get the crack you were smoking when you wrote this.  I gotta get me some of that stuff.


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 26, 2011)

> Hey HF, you forgot the next sentence. I wonder why???
> 
> 
> Quote:
> ...



Definitely 40-70 qualifies as years later.  Actually 8 million qualifies as "years later" too.

Fact is that generations does not = 40-70 years.


Just for reference....there were many people who lived longer than 40 years.  



> ...the respected first century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus provides evidence that indicates many members of at least one first century C.E. Jewish group lived for more than 100 years. This group was known as the Essenes, and many scholars argue that the Essenes produced much of the Dead Sea Scrolls material.
> http://www.preventingtruthdecay.org/firstcenturylifespans.shtml



If you want to argue that "generations" COULD mean 40-70....you got me.  I didn't argue specifics.  I argued implication.  The implication of the "generations" comment that was made was that Matthew was not written for a very long time after Jesus death and resurrection.




> And it is very unlikely that it was written by someone who got the story directly from Matthew.




You're right....it's more likely that it was written by someone named Matthew...who was there to see it himself.  Thus, not generations later.  

It's not even worth arguing.  So I'll let y'all have your fun with this.  The vast majority of biblical scholars do not agree with you.


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 26, 2011)

What is the majority view on the dating of Matthew? Please cite your source. 



> The precise date of the writing of Matthew’s Gospel is not known. Some scholars argue for a date later than the destruction of Jerusalem in a.d. 70, since Jesus alludes to this event in 24:1–28. Of course, such a conclusion is warranted only if one denies Jesus’ ability to predict the future. In light of Irenaeus’s assertion (c. a.d. 175) that Matthew composed his Gospel while Peter and Paul were still living (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.1.1), it is traditionally dated to the late 50s or early 60s.



from the ESV Study Bible...written by...



> a team of 95 outstanding evangelical Bible scholars and teachers. They were chosen, first, because of their deep commitment to the truth, authority, and sufficiency of God’s Word; and, second, because of their expertise in teaching and understanding the Bible. The team of contributors comes from 9 countries, representing nearly 20 denominations and more than 50 seminaries, colleges, and universities.




If you're looking for me to quote you some "agnostic" or "un-biased" dating source, you're smoking the same thing bullethead was smoking when he said a generation was 20-25 years....and it's GOTTA be good stuff.  So I don't blame you.

What I said was that the majority of biblical scholars (most of who are actually believers) say that Matthew wrote it....obviously within his lifetime.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Sep 26, 2011)

Generations; My grandpa can tell a story today that can pass thru 5 generations. He tells my father, my father tells me, I tell my child, who then tells his kids. I don't really have grandchildren yet, my kids are all still in school but you see my point. The use of generations is not lifespans, but passing from generation to generation. I hope this clears up my usuage of generations


----------



## bullethead (Sep 26, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> What is the majority view on the dating of Matthew? Please cite your source.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I bet your family is proud of your manners.

http://www.ancestry.com/learn/library/article.aspx?article=11152
Take the time to actually learn something.


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 27, 2011)

> I think the variances prove that it was written generations later. For example, the book of Matthew was probably written years later, maybe generations later...





> Generations; My grandpa can tell a story today that can pass thru 5 generations. He tells my father, my father tells me, I tell my child, who then tells his kids. I don't really have grandchildren yet, my kids are all still in school but you see my point. The use of generations is not lifespans, but passing from generation to generation. I hope this clears up my usuage of generations.



I'm sorry man....these two statements don't jive and you guys all know it.  You did not intend "generations later" in the first statement to mean, "Well, grandpa told a story to grandson and they sat down together at the same table to write it down."

It was intended to show that the book of Matthew was passed from generation to generation and someone wrote it down many many years later....after the original hearers of the story had long since passed.  It was intended to show the dilution of the story...and thus the unreliability and "variation" that you talked about.

If you guys want to argue semantics on how many years equals a generation, go right ahead.  The intent of the first quote was to show that it was many many years later that the story was written down and THAT is why there are "variations"....not that multiple generations had heard it because they were all alive at the same point in time and grandpa wrote it down.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 27, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> I'm sorry man....these two statements don't jive and you guys all know it.  You did not intend "generations later" in the first statement to mean, "Well, grandpa told a story to grandson and they sat down together at the same table to write it down."
> 
> It was intended to show that the book of Matthew was passed from generation to generation and someone wrote it down many many years later....after the original hearers of the story had long since passed.  It was intended to show the dilution of the story...and thus the unreliability and "variation" that you talked about.
> 
> If you guys want to argue semantics on how many years equals a generation, go right ahead.  The intent of the first quote was to show that it was many many years later that the story was written down and THAT is why there are "variations"....not that multiple generations had heard it because they were all alive at the same point in time and grandpa wrote it down.



" Many many years later that the story was written down and THAT is why there are "variations""

Precisely why it is embellished legend and folklore instead of an accurate first hand account of what really happened.

A Generation is not the lifespan of a human. It is the average span of time between the birth of parents and that of their children.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 27, 2011)

HF, I have no dog in this fight, but the concept of generations is an interesting one when we consider when these books were written.

There are a few people alive today, very old people, who had first-hand conversations with very old civil war veterans.  How many generations past is the civil war?  It is more than two.


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 27, 2011)

That giant whoosh you guys heard was the point going right past you...

The post said two things "written years later" and "maybe generations later".....the two are contrasted in the post.  The implication of the contrast is that there is a monumental difference.  The post was inferring that "generations" was much longer than "years".  

You guys can stay on the debate about 20-25 years between births all day long if you want.  I don't know of any newborns....or ten year olds (especially 2000 years ago)...who could hear that story and write it down.  The measure is technical and un-realistic for the topic.  Robert Frost wrote about two roads diverging in a wood.  You're going down the wrong path.  




> Precisely why it is embellished legend and folklore instead of an accurate first hand account of what really happened.



Unless, of course, you agree with the vast majority of highly educated biblical scholars who say that Matthew wrote the book....first hand.


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 27, 2011)

> There are a few people alive today, very old people, who had first-hand conversations with very old civil war veterans. How many generations past is the civil war? It is more than two.



If someone was fighting in 1865 (the last year of the war), then they likely had kids around the same time.

25 year generations = 5 between 1865 and 1990 (the next isn't scheduled to be born till 2015)

5 generations born in 125 years.  How many of those could actually have spoken to the guy who fought in 1865?

Well, let's look at the birth years:

1890
1915
1940
1965
1990

Let's assume the soldier was 25 in 1865 and he lived till he was 100 (that's being generous).  He died in 1940 and told his story right before death.

How many of those generations would have had the opportunity to have a recallable conversation with that man?  2 of them.  

5 have been born....2 could have heard the story and written it down from a firsthand account of the soldier.

Not sure what that accomplished...but it answered the question at least.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 27, 2011)

I was just pointing out that a lot of time can be covered by a few folks, but the concept of generation is different than the concept of time.

Like I said, I don't have a dog in this fight, I don't think it matters so much who wrote the book of Mathew as what is in the book of Mathew.

Oh, and the one dude I have listened to about this was over 90 years old, and he talked about the old confederate vets he knew when he was young.  It was a fascinating story if you are into history.  It was an old man retelling what an old man told him when he was very young, cool stuff.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Sep 27, 2011)

bullethead said:


> " _*Many many years la*_ter that the story was written down and THAT is why there are "variations""
> 
> Precisely why it is embellished legend and folklore instead of an accurate first hand account of what really happened.
> 
> A Generation is not the lifespan of a human. It is the average span of time between the birth of parents and that of their children.


Be more exact please


----------



## bullethead (Sep 27, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> That giant whoosh you guys heard was the point going right past you...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think that whoosh is your facts going down the toilet. 

If I am not mistaken your Biblical experts agree that Mark was written first and according to this site:
http://bible.org/article/synoptic-problem
97% of Marks gospel is duplicated in Matthew.
From the site:
"When one compares the synoptic parallels, some startling results are noticed. Of Mark’s 11,025 words, only 132 have no parallel in either Matthew or Luke. Percentage-wise, 97% of Mark’s Gospel is duplicated in Matthew; and 88% is found in Luke."

That's a good first hand copy of another book. Not sure how much of it he witnessed.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 27, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> Be more exact please



The "many many years later" you have in red was coming from HF. Check post #137. Maybe he can be more exact.??


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 28, 2011)

> That's a good first hand copy of another book. Not sure how much of it he witnessed.



So what you're saying is that if they aren't similar enough, then there's evidence that none of it happened because the four gospels can't get their stories straight.

But if they are TOO similar, then they are just plagarized copies...and so none of it happened.

Hilarious man....that's priceless.


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 28, 2011)

> The "many many years later" you have in red was coming from HF. Check post #137. Maybe he can be more exact.??



Many many years equal exactly 124.26853753 years and not a second more....to be more exact.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 28, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> So what you're saying is that if they aren't similar enough, then there's evidence that none of it happened because the four gospels can't get their stories straight.
> 
> But if they are TOO similar, then they are just plagarized copies...and so none of it happened.
> 
> Hilarious man....that's priceless.



I see it for what they are. Stories. It is not my fault that these writings are neither first hand or original.

In between laughs, explain why 97% of Mark is in Matthew and 88% of Mark is in Luke.


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 28, 2011)

No, it's not your fault....because there is no good solid evidence to support the idea that they are not first hand.  I'll post it again...



> The precise date of the writing of Matthew’s Gospel is not known. Some scholars argue for a date later than the destruction of Jerusalem in a.d. 70, since Jesus alludes to this event in 24:1–28. Of course, such a conclusion is warranted only if one denies Jesus’ ability to predict the future. In light of Irenaeus’s assertion (c. a.d. 175) that Matthew composed his Gospel while Peter and Paul were still living (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.1.1), it is traditionally dated to the late 50s or early 60s.



from the ESV Study Bible...written by...




> a team of 95 outstanding evangelical Bible scholars and teachers. They were chosen, first, because of their deep commitment to the truth, authority, and sufficiency of God’s Word; and, second, because of their expertise in teaching and understanding the Bible. The team of contributors comes from 9 countries, representing nearly 20 denominations and more than 50 seminaries, colleges, and universities.







> In between laughs, explain why 97% of Mark is in Matthew and 88% of Mark is in Luke.




Ha Ha Ha....because....Ha Ha Ha....it's three people....Ha Ha Ha...telling the...Ha Ha Ha....same...Ha Ha Ha...story.

....so they are very similar.

Kind of like that?  I'm just messing with you man.  Hang in there.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 28, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> No, it's not your fault....because there is no good solid evidence to support the idea that they are not first hand.  I'll post it again...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



They are not very similar. More like exact words. 
I'll be on later tonight, gotta go to work.


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 28, 2011)

like I said....too similar, "unbelievable".  Too different..."unbelievable".


----------



## atlashunter (Sep 28, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Unless, of course, you agree with the vast majority of highly educated biblical scholars who say that Matthew wrote the book....first hand.





You should have said the vast majority of halfwit preachers if you intended to make a true statement.

That is not the view of the "vast majority of highly educated biblical scholars". It is widely acknowledged in academia that the designation of the name Matthew is tradition, a tradition that arose years after it was written, that the authorship is anonymous, and for various reasons not believed to be authored by an eye witness much less a disciple.

The author doesn't claim to be Matthew or an eye witness or a disciple and we know much of the material comes directly from Mark. The ONLY thing that says that the disciple Matthew wrote it is church tradition. That's it. Everything else says otherwise.


----------



## atlashunter (Sep 28, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> So what you're saying is that if they aren't similar enough, then there's evidence that none of it happened because the four gospels can't get their stories straight.
> 
> But if they are TOO similar, then they are just plagarized copies...and so none of it happened.
> 
> Hilarious man....that's priceless.



Do you understand the difference between corroboration and collaboration?


----------



## bullethead (Sep 28, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> like I said....too similar, "unbelievable".  Too different..."unbelievable".



Right because the parts that they did not copy word for word do not corroborate with the other writings that include specific days, times, events.

If they all said he died on a Friday then they all are in line with each other. When one says it was the day before this or a day after that or it was at noon, or three pm or 6pm or one tells of an earthquake that opened the tombs and dead were risen....then the other gospels fail to mention such an event....yeah I'd say they missed something important OR they added something that did not happen. How could you be there and witness it and not mention it? Mark, Matthew and Luke say Jesus had help carrying the cross, John says he did not. 
Mark, Matthew, Luke and John ALL have something different for what was inscribed on the cross.
Romans did not crucify thieves but some Gospels say they were thieves, Within those Mark does not mention a conversation between them and Jesus. Matthew has them taunting Jesus, Luke has a detailed conversation between the thieves and Jesus. In John, they are not described as thieves at all.
None agree on what Jesus was offered to drink OR if he did or did not drink it.

None agree on what the Roman Centurions who witnessed the crucifixion  said.
Mark 15:39 - A centurion is cited as saying: “Truly this man was the son of God!”
Matthew 27:54 - A centurion is cited as saying: “Truly this was the son of God.”
Luke 23:47 - A centurion is cited as saying: “Truly this man was innocent.”
John - No centurions say anything 

What were Jesus' final words?
Mark 15:34-37, Matthew 27:46-50 - Jesus says: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”
Luke 23:46 - Jesus says: “Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit.”
John 19:30 - Jesus says: “It is finished.” 

When did the crucifixion take place?

Mark 15:25 - Jesus was crucified on the “third hour.”
John 19:14-15 - Jesus was crucified on the “sixth hour.”
Matthew, Luke - It’s not stated when the crucifixion starts, but the “sixth hour” occurs during the crucifixion.


HF, How could these guys get such different details if they were there and witnessed it? If you say well 4 different witnesses will have 4 different stories....OKAY, but then how is their other words SO dead on about the things they were not there to witness? Did God inspire them to get the the little insignificant details of Jesus childhood and daily life exactly spot on with each other, but the precise details of the moment of Son of God being crucified  is left to what the authors THINK happened???

You go right ahead citing what 95 (ahem)biblical scholars think about WHEN these things were written. It is what is inside those writings that counts towards their credibility for me.


----------



## centerpin fan (Sep 28, 2011)

For atlashunter, bullethead or whoever wants to chime in:

what would it take for you to accept the Bible as a reliable document?  Perfect harmony between the gospels? Or something else?

This is not a trick question or a "gotcha" moment.  I'm just curious as to what would satisfy you.


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 28, 2011)

> You should have said the vast majority of halfwit preachers if you intended to make a true statement.



Hilarious...these are men and women who read and write the original languages like you and I do english.  People with multiple terminal degrees in the study and decades of study on the issue.

....and they are Christians.  You're right...compared to you...they probably are half-wits.  



> That is not the view of the "vast majority of highly educated biblical scholars".



100% untrue.  I'm not even going to argue this with you.  Most biblical scholars agree that Matthew is the author.  That's not even a debatable point.  Of course, there are some who don't.  But most do.



> It is widely acknowledged in academia that the designation of the name Matthew is tradition, a tradition that arose years after it was written, that the authorship is anonymous, and for various reasons not believed to be authored by an eye witness much less a disciple.



You are correct.  No author named in the book....and most highly educated biblical scholars agree that the author was Matthew. 



> and we know much of the material comes directly from Mark.



No...we know that much of the material is reflective of Mark...which we would expect...since it's the same story.



> The ONLY thing that says that the disciple Matthew wrote it is church tradition. That's it. Everything else says otherwise


. 

...that, and all those highly educated biblical scholars that look like hafl-wits next to you.


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 28, 2011)

> Do you understand the difference between corroboration and collaboration?



Yes...I do.  Thanks for the question.


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 28, 2011)

> You go right ahead citing what 95 (ahem)biblical scholars think about WHEN these things were written. It is what is inside those writings that counts towards their credibility for me.



That's fine if you don't believe them.  But please....PLEASE don't tell me that you think you are more knowledgable or that there is some kind of vast conspiracy in the Christian scholar (no ahem about it...these are brilliant men and women with decades of experience and education) community where they KNOW what they are saying is a lie...but they've all sworn a super secret oath to never tell us about it.  Give me an ever lovin' break!

My problem with what you're posting is that you object to BOTH the fact that you think there are inconsistencies and that they are copies of each other.  If they were going to copy parts of it....they would have copied all of it.  That's just plain old common sense and I don't even need to have the high level understanding that atlashunter has that makes them look like half-wits to know that.

y'all have fun with this.  I know I sure am.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 28, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> For atlashunter, bullethead or whoever wants to chime in:
> 
> what would it take for you to accept the Bible as a reliable document?  Perfect harmony between the gospels? Or something else?
> 
> This is not a trick question or a "gotcha" moment.  I'm just curious as to what would satisfy you.



I think it is fine for the believers that think it is fine. I do not think it is any more reliable than any other religions "bible" . I think it is what it is and that for me is a man made guidebook that tells the story of what the authors wanted to convey to all that read it, in the hopes that some follow it and those that do obey it.  It is one version of a cultures beliefs. It represents a certain time and place where people believed certain ways and those thoughts and beliefs were put into a form where a religion could follow it. The OT and OT/NT together represent two different religions that believe in the same god but one religion stops at the OT.

For me to follow it, it would have to be solely the work of THE supreme being. It should be done in a way for all on earth to understand that it is his work...I am sure he could figure out HOW that would be accomplished with less than a seconds worth of thought.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 28, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> That's fine if you don't believe them.  But please....PLEASE don't tell me that you think you are more knowledgable or that there is some kind of vast conspiracy in the Christian scholar (no ahem about it...these are brilliant men and women with decades of experience and education) community where they KNOW what they are saying is a lie...but they've all sworn a super secret oath to never tell us about it.  Give me an ever lovin' break!
> 
> My problem with what you're posting is that you object to BOTH the fact that you think there are inconsistencies and that they are copies of each other.  If they were going to copy parts of it....they would have copied all of it.  That's just plain old common sense and I don't even need to have the high level understanding that atlashunter has that makes them look like half-wits to know that.
> 
> y'all have fun with this.  I know I sure am.



You have no idea of the depth of conversations I have had with a close friend that is clergy. You would be surprised at what is super secret among them. Thats is all I will say about that.

Common sense and what is written in the Bible do not mix. Search when each was written. Search the "good" sites, the "bad" sites and the sites in between. Then form your opinion about what they would or could have done. What you would have done or better yet what you think they would have done has no bearing on what was actually done.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 28, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> That's fine if you don't believe them.  But please....PLEASE don't tell me that you think you are more knowledgable or that there is some kind of vast conspiracy in the Christian scholar (no ahem about it...these are brilliant men and women with decades of experience and education) community where they KNOW what they are saying is a lie...but they've all sworn a super secret oath to never tell us about it.  Give me an ever lovin' break!
> 
> My problem with what you're posting is that you object to BOTH the fact that you think there are inconsistencies and that they are copies of each other.  If they were going to copy parts of it....they would have copied all of it.  That's just plain old common sense and I don't even need to have the high level understanding that atlashunter has that makes them look like half-wits to know that.
> 
> y'all have fun with this.  I know I sure am.



Still waiting for the explanation on the discrepancies at the crucifixion I gave you.


----------



## atlashunter (Sep 28, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> For atlashunter, bullethead or whoever wants to chime in:
> 
> what would it take for you to accept the Bible as a reliable document?  Perfect harmony between the gospels? Or something else?
> 
> This is not a trick question or a "gotcha" moment.  I'm just curious as to what would satisfy you.



Skip to the 7 minute mark of this video.



The elements he describes I agree with. If you have contradictory accounts they may both be false or one may be true and the other false but they can't both be true. In the case of the contradiction between Mark and John they can't both be true unless you want to claim that Jesus was crucified twice. That pretty much rules out any claims of inerrancy.

If the gospels met those standards that Ehrman describes it would be an improvement over what they actually say. It still would not necessarily mean everything claimed is true though. Different claims require different levels of evidence.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 28, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> If you have contradictory accounts they may both be false or one may be true and the other false but they can't both be true.



Exact-A-Mundo! Fonzarelli


----------



## bullethead (Sep 28, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> 100% untrue.  I'm not even going to argue this with you.  Most biblical scholars agree that Matthew is the author.  That's not even a debatable point.  Of course, there are some who don't.  But most do.
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct.  No author named in the book....and most highly educated biblical scholars agree that the author was Matthew.



"That's not even a debatable point"
I think it is.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/matthew.html


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Sep 28, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Skip to the 7 minute mark of this video.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Man, I could sit and listen to Bart for days. I got a million questions for him. Poor sucker he is debating with. As usual, reason is thrown out the window, saying lots of words but not saying nothing. When will these religious nuts ever realize that it will never be proven.


----------



## atlashunter (Sep 28, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Hilarious...these are men and women who read and write the original languages like you and I do english.  People with multiple terminal degrees in the study and decades of study on the issue.
> 
> ....and they are Christians.  You're right...compared to you...they probably are half-wits.



Virtually no halfwit preacher falls into that group.




Huntinfool said:


> 100% untrue.  I'm not even going to argue this with you.  Most biblical scholars agree that Matthew is the author.  That's not even a debatable point.  Of course, there are some who don't.  But most do.



Right. "Most biblical scholars agree"... I suppose that is why just to cite one example the Oxford companion to the Bible says "It is commonly held that Matthew was written about 85 or 90 CE by an unknown Christian who was at home in a church located in Antioch of Syria."

I could cite more sources but it's not worth wasting any more time. You'll no doubt continue in denial and that is fine.




Huntinfool said:


> You are correct.  No author named in the book....and most highly educated biblical scholars agree that the author was Matthew.





Not only is that untrue, even if it were true what is the evidence that they are right? Church tradition? How much weight would that carry in light of the fact that we know forgeries were committed in the name of prominent early christians in order to lend credibility?





Huntinfool said:


> No...we know that much of the material is reflective of Mark...which we would expect...since it's the same story.



Here we go back to the distinction between corroboration and collaboration. Verbatim duplication doesn't indicate two independent but complimentary accounts. It indicates plagiarism which is NOT what we would expect from two distinct eye witness testimonies.




Huntinfool said:


> ...that, and all those highly educated biblical scholars that look like hafl-wits next to you.



I am in agreement with Bart Ehrman and Dennis C Duling. You are in agreement with Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. I've got my biblical scholars and you have yours.


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 29, 2011)

> You are in agreement with Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. I've got my biblical scholars and you have yours.



Yeh....those two....and a few others (this is a partial list of the folks who contributed to the translation of the ESV).  

I would love to have been in those required weekly "Christian Conspiracy" meetings where they all discussed which of the multiple-thousands of year old lies they had to agree on so that there was no break in the continuity of the mindless-sheep they are hoodwinking.

Gotta hate it when a bunch of intellectually dis-honest Ph.D's from the likes of Harvard, Cambridge, Oxford, Duke, Northwestern, UC Irvine, etc all come together for the express purpose of perpetuating what they know to be a lie.  I'm sure it's either conspiracy or they are just mindlessly spouting what they've been taught.  Probably haven't done any real research on their own to come to a conclusion.  I mean...since all Christians are just mindless sheep who believe anything they are told from a pulpit....right?

Lane T. Dennis
Ph.D., Northwestern University

Wayne Grudem
Ph.D., University of Cambridge

J. I. Packer
D. Phil., University of Oxford

C. John Collins
Ph.D., University of Liverpool

Thomas R. Schreiner
Ph.D., Fuller Theological Seminary

Justin Taylor
B.A., University of Northern Iowa

T. Desmond Alexander
Ph.D., The Queenâ€™s University of Belfast

Clinton Arnold 
Ph.D., University of Aberdeen

Brian Aucker
Ph.D., University of Edinburgh

David Baker 
Ph.D., University of London

Paul Barker
Ph.D., University of Gloucestershire

S. M. Baugh
Ph.D., University of California, Irvine

Hans Bayer
Ph.D., University of Aberdeen

Ronald Bergey
Ph.D., Dropsie University

David W. Chapman 
Ph.D., University of Cambridge

C. John Collins 
Ph.D., University of Liverpool

John Currid 
Ph.D., University of Chicago

Iain Duguid 
Ph.D., University of Cambridge

Mark Futato
Ph.D., The Catholic University of America

Simon Gathercole
Ph.D., University of Durham

Duane A. Garrett
Ph.D., Baylor University

Wayne Grudem 
Ph.D., University of Cambridge

Scott Hafemann 
D.Theol., Eberhard-Karls-Universitat Tubingen

Kenneth Laing Harris
Ph.D., University of Liverpool

Paul House
Ph.D., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

David M. Howard Jr.
Ph.D., The University of Michigan

Gordon Hugenberger
Ph.D., C.N.A.A., College of Sts. Paul & Mary, The Oxford Centre for Post-Graduate Hebrew Study

Dennis Johnson
Ph.D., Fuller Theological Seminary

Brian Kelly 
Ph.D., University of Bristol

Nobuyoshi Kiuchi 
Ph.D., The Council for National Academic Awards

August Konkel 
Ph.D., Westminster Theological Seminary

Andreas J. Köstenberger
Ph.D., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

V. Philips Long 
Ph.D., University of Cambridge

Dennis Magary
Ph.D., University of Wisconsin at Madison

Walter Maier III 
Ph.D., Harvard University

J. Gordon McConville
Ph.D., University of Sheffield

Sean McDonough
Ph.D., University of St. Andrews

Colin Nicholl 
Ph.D., University of Cambridge

Raymond C. Ortlund Jr. 
Ph.D., University of Aberdeen

Grant Osborne 
Ph.D., University of Aberdeen

Doug Oss 
Ph.D., Westminster Theological Seminary

John Oswalt
Ph.D., Brandeis University

John Polhill 
Ph.D., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Iain Provan
Ph.D., University of Cambridge

Paul Raabe 
Ph.D., The University of Michigan

David J. Reimer 
D.Phil., University of Oxford

Max F. Rogland 
Ph.D., Leiden University

Thomas R. Schreiner 
Ph.D., Fuller Theological Seminary

Jay Sklar 
Ph.D., The University of Gloucestershire

Andrew Stewart 
M.A., Covenant Theological Seminary

Frank Thielman 
Ph.D., Duke University

David Toshio Tsumura 
Ph.D., Brandeis University

Ray Van Neste 
Ph.D., University of Aberdeen

Robert I. Vasholz 
Th.D., University of Stellenbosch (South Africa)

Barry G. Webb
Ph.D., University of Sheffield

Paul D. Wegner 
Ph.D., University of London

Gordon Wenham 
Ph.D., Kingâ€™s College, University of London

Michael Wilkins 
Ph.D., Fuller Theological Seminary

Robert Yarbrough
Ph.D., University of Aberdeen


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 29, 2011)

> You have no idea of the depth of conversations I have had with a close friend that is clergy. You would be surprised at what is super secret among them. Thats is all I will say about that.




Ah....so you have a friend who told you about the super-secret lies.  Would you PM me his name, so I can contact the Grand Pubbah of the clergy and have his access card to the super secret conspiracy meetings revoked?


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 29, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Ah....so you have a friend who told you about the super-secret lies.  Would you PM me his name, so I can contact the Grand Pubbah of the clergy and have his access card to the super secret conspiracy meetings revoked?



This kind-of reminded me of the South Park episode where "Chef" joined the "super adventure club" (they were making fun of scientology).


----------



## stringmusic (Sep 29, 2011)

bullethead said:


> When did the crucifixion take place?
> 
> Mark 15:25 - Jesus was crucified on the “third hour.”
> John 19:14-15 - Jesus was crucified on the “sixth hour.”
> Matthew, Luke - It’s not stated when the crucifixion starts, but the “sixth hour” occurs during the crucifixion



I'll give this a shot....

Mark and John could have been using alternative ways of telling time, Mark using Jewish time and John using Roman time, both which were in existence during the first century.

Mark, in the common Jewish way, reckoning time from daybreak. While John, using official Roman time in which the day started at midnight.

Both writers could have been using round numbers in a Jewish timeline in which the days and nights were divided into fourths at which case at time of roughly 10:30AM could be rounded up or down to the nearest three hour mark.




Pssssst.... I heard Mathew had a Rolex and John only had a timex


----------



## stringmusic (Sep 29, 2011)

I'll try to give the others a shot later, gots to go to the doc with my prego wife


----------



## bullethead (Sep 29, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Yeh....those two....and a few others (this is a partial list of the folks who contributed to the translation of the ESV).
> 
> I would love to have been in those required weekly "Christian Conspiracy" meetings where they all discussed which of the multiple-thousands of year old lies they had to agree on so that there was no break in the continuity of the mindless-sheep they are hoodwinking.
> 
> ...



Here is an equally long and boring list of Biblical and religious scholars that were part of the "Jesus Seminar"( if your unfamiliar   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar  or http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jsem.htm )
From this link you can click on their name to get their bio.
http://www.westarinstitute.org/Fellows/list.html

    Andries G. van Aarde
    Valerie A. Abrahamsen
    Martin L. Appelt
    Karen Armstrong
    William E. Arnal
    Richard L. Arthur
    Harold W. Attridge
    Robert Bater
    Joseph Bessler
    â€  Edward F. Beutner
    Anthony Blasi
    Marcus Borg
    Willi Braun
    James R. Butts
    â€  Marvin F. Cain
    Ron Cameron
    Bruce D. Chilton
    Kathleen E. Corley
    Wendy J. Cotter
    John Dominic Crossan
    Don Cupitt
    Jon Daniels
    Jean Jacques D'Aoust
    Jon F. Dechow
    Arthur J. Dewey
    Joanna Dewey
    â€  John Dillenberger
    William Doty
    Darrell J. Doughty
    Dennis C. Duling
    Rubén René Dupertuis
    Pamela Eisenbaum
    Susan M. Elliott
    Robert T. Fortna
    Robert M. Fowler
    â€  Robert W. Funk
    David Galston
    Lloyd Geering
    Jennifer Glancy
    James Goss
    Heinz Guenther
    Sakari Hakkinen
    Maurice Hamington
    Walter Harrelson
    Stephen L. Harris
    Charles W. Hedrick
    James D. Hester
    C. M. Kempton Hewitt
    Jack A. Hill
    Julian V. Hills
    Richard Holloway
    Roy W. Hoover
    Benjamin J. Hubbard
    Michael L. Humphries
    Margaret D. Hutaff
    Glenna S. Jackson
    Arland Jacobson
    Clayton N. Jefford
    Gregory C. Jenks
    Melanie Johnson-DeBaufre
    Bob Jones
    F. Stanley Jones
    Larry Kalajainen
    Perry V. Kea
    John C. Kelly
    William Doane Kelly
    Chan-Hie Kim
    Karen L. King
    John S. Kloppenborg
    Ron Large
    Paul Alan Laughlin
    Nigel Leaves
    Margaret E. Lee
    Nina E. Livesey
    Davidson Loehr
    â€  Sanford Lowe
    John Lown
    Gerd Luedemann
    Shelly Matthews
    Dennis R. MacDonald
    Brian Rice McCarthy
    Lane C. McGaughy
    Edward J. McMahon II
    Francis Macnab
    Loren Mack-Fisher
    Daniel Marguerat
    Marvin W. Meyer
    Darren J. N. Middleton
    J. Ramsey Michaels
    William R. Millar
    L. Bruce Miller
    Robert J. Miller
    â€  Robert L'H. Miller
    Milton C. Moreland
    â€  Winsome Munro
    Culver H. Nelson
    Rod Parrott
    Stephen J. Patterson
    Todd Penner
    Richard I. Pervo
    Robert M. Price
    Anne Primavesi
    Jonathan L. Reed
    Howard Rice
    Vernon K. Robbins
    James M. Robinson
    Stan Rummel
    Marianne Sawicki
    â€  Daryl D. Schmidt
    Oswald Schrag
    Bernard Brandon Scott
    Andrew D. Scrimgeour
    Philip Sellew
    Chris Shea
    Thomas Sheehan
    Lou H. Silberman
    Daniel A. Smith
    Dennis E. Smith
    Mahlon H. Smith
    Graydon Snyder
    John Shelby Spong
    John Staten
    Michael G. Steinhauser
    Roy SteinhoffSmith
    Robert F. Stoops, Jr.
    Johann Strijdom
    Jon Sveinbjornsson
    Jarmo Tarkki
    W. Barnes Tatum
    Hal Taussig
    Barbara Thiering
    Joseph B. Tyson
    Leif E. Vaage
    James Veitch
    Paul Verhoeven
    Wesley Hiram Wachob
    William O. Walker
    Donna Wallace
    Robert L. Webb
    Theodore J. Weeden, Sr.
    James E. West
    John L. White
    L. Michael White
    Patricia Williams
    Walter Wink

They are as educated as the people on your list so after reading through the Jesus Seminar link, do you agree with what they have to say?


----------



## stringmusic (Sep 29, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Here is an equally long and boring list of Biblical and religious scholars that were part of the "Jesus Seminar"( if your unfamiliar   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar  or http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jsem.htm )
> From this link you can click on their name to get their bio.
> http://www.westarinstitute.org/Fellows/list.html
> 
> ...


Apples to Oranges

The Jesus seminar folks are a VERY small KNOWN to be fringe of "scholars" that in no way show what the mainstream of Biblical scholars think. They had an agenda going into their seminar, stating something like "Jesus didn't say 86% of what is written in the Bible"

The only reason anyone knows anything about the Jesus seminar is because of the coverage they got on TV and articles written in magazines presenting them as mainstream in their theology. The people from the Jesus seminar and the word mainstream are mutually exclusive. In a word, they are a joke.

The book I am reading just touched on this subject of the JS, I'll try to read it again, and if there is anything to add, I will post it tomorrow.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 29, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Apples to Oranges
> 
> The Jesus seminar folks are a VERY small KNOWN to be fringe of "scholars" that in no way show what the mainstream of Biblical scholars think. They had an agenda going into their seminar, stating something like "Jesus didn't say 86% of what is written in the Bible"
> 
> ...



It is not apples to oranges where the author of Matthew is concerned.

The point was not being mainstream or even actually the Jesus seminar itself. What I am pointing out is that having a bunch of credentials behind a name does not automatically make them the do-all end-all authority. There is no difference(scholarly) between the ones in my list or the ones that think the disciple Matthew wrote Matthew. It is their opinions, based on the facts they choose to follow, that differ. Neither hold any clout for the people that have opinions that differ from theirs.

Bottom line:
For every "scholar" that says Matthew wrote Matthew there is another equally educated "scholar" that says it was someone else.


----------



## atlashunter (Sep 29, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Yeh....those two....and a few others (this is a partial list of the folks who contributed to the translation of the ESV).
> 
> I would love to have been in those required weekly "Christian Conspiracy" meetings where they all discussed which of the multiple-thousands of year old lies they had to agree on so that there was no break in the continuity of the mindless-sheep they are hoodwinking.
> 
> ...



Are you suggesting that all of the people on that list share your view on the authorship of Matthew?


----------



## atlashunter (Sep 29, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> I'll give this a shot....
> 
> Mark and John could have been using alternative ways of telling time, Mark using Jewish time and John using Roman time, both which were in existence during the first century.
> 
> ...



This is like the people who read Nostradomus looking to make what they read say what they want it to, not what it actually says.


----------



## stringmusic (Sep 30, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> This is like the people who read Nostradomus looking to make what they read say what they want it to, not what it actually says.



I guess we can just agree to disagree as usual. I didn't change any words or make a stretch of anything. There was more than one way to tell time during the first century in the area, I don't understand why that is so hard to accept? It's pretty simple really.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 30, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> I guess we can just agree to disagree as usual. I didn't change any words or make a stretch of anything. There was more than one way to tell time during the first century in the area, I don't understand why that is so hard to accept? It's pretty simple really.



String, true, they did use different methods to tell time back then but there is no concrete evidence of which method was used. The difference between the two methods like the Jewish third hour(Roman 9-10am)and the Jewish sixth hour (Roman 12-1pm) would not add up to the discrepancies in the Gospels. One says crucifixion took place in third hour and one says sixth hour, they are both Jewish ways of keeping time. The 3 hour difference between those is still a 3hour difference in Roman time too.


----------



## atlashunter (Sep 30, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> I guess we can just agree to disagree as usual. I didn't change any words or make a stretch of anything. There was more than one way to tell time during the first century in the area, I don't understand why that is so hard to accept? It's pretty simple really.



John doesn't say or suggest that he is using Roman time. Yet you say that he is in order to try to find a way to make sense of the discrepency even though it doesn't really accomplish that goal.

If John was using Roman time and Mark was using Jewish time the accounts still contradict each other. There is a 3 hour difference either way.

I know how important context is for Christians. Does the context of John lead one to believe he was using Roman time or Jewish time?

The Gospel of John calls Jesus the lamb of God and stresses the point that he was a sacrificial lamb. His crucifixion account makes perfect sense in that light. If he was using Jewish time then the time he uses parallels the time that the priest started sacrificing the Passover lambs. That would also explain why he says it was the day of preparation for the passover while Mark places it on the following day. Perhaps John was less concerned with historical accuracy than he was with conveying a theological message.

http://www.cfpeople.org/Books/EuchJohn/EuchJohnp5.htm



> In the NT the firstborn Son and Lamb of God fulfilled the Old Covenant Passover in Himself as a holy sacrifice for our sins. However the Passover link involved more than just the Eucharist.[13] This is seen in John’s Gospel where the entire succession of events which began with the Last Supper and ended with Jesus’ crucifixion, reflects various themes of the Jewish Passover.
> 
> a) For example John mentions in Jn 19:14 that as Jesus stood before Pilate; it was the day for the preparation of the Passover and it was about the 6th hour. The 6th hour was the time that the priest began to slaughter the lambs for the Passover. An interesting note: in the greek the word for "day of preparation" is paraskeuh; which is also the word for Friday.
> 
> ...


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 2, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Are you suggesting that all of the people on that list share your view on the authorship of Matthew?


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 5, 2011)

Atlas, I answered you in a post that I deleted several days ago.  I promised a friend I would leave this thread alone and I will.

I made the point I was trying to make.


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 5, 2011)

It's an easily answered question. I think you know that it isn't a list of people who support your viewpoint on the authorship of Matthew. Some of them might but certainly not all and I have the evidence to back that up. But you already knew that.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 5, 2011)

Actually I didn't.  Post it up.  I'll read it.  Won't respond.  But I'll read it.

Again....my point was made.  Not just me, Jerry and Pat.

Is that you in your avatar?


----------



## atlashunter (Oct 5, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Actually I didn't.  Post it up.  I'll read it.  Won't respond.  But I'll read it.
> 
> Again....my point was made.  Not just me, Jerry and Pat.
> 
> Is that you in your avatar?



I'd like your answer to my question first. It seemed like you were suggesting that all of those people agree with your view on the authorship of Matthew. But I'd like to know for sure if that was the case.


----------



## Huntinfool (Oct 5, 2011)

> I'll read it. Won't respond. But I'll read it.




Just for you String.


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 5, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Just for you String.


----------



## Greaserbilly (Nov 14, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Mark and John could have been using alternative ways of telling time, Mark using Jewish time and John using Roman time, both which were in existence during the first century.



Absolutely correct.

That being said, the Bible makes NO claim of being inerrant, and I can explain with an etch a sketch why it's impossible to absolutely know for sure what was meant, esp. in the NT.

That being said, the Anglican communion makes this claim: everything NECESSARY FOR SALVATION is within those writings, and they are to be taken seriously, though not necessarily literally.

Word of God? Word of Man, quoting God in places, and subject to error.


----------



## Flatwoods_Hunter (Dec 5, 2011)

The Bible doesnt speak to the heart of men who arent believers, to you it is just foolishness.  The first thing you need to do is ask yourself, what if God does exist. And if He does, and if Heaven or :nono::nono::nono::nono: does exist, where would you go if you died today?  See, God created the law (Ten Commandments) which none of us have ever kept.  And because we broke that law, a punishment must be paid.  Because God is holy and perfect and cannot look upon sin, and just as a true and honeralble judge in our court system must sentence criminals who break our law, we too must be sentenced.  But He sent Jesus to live a sinless life, to be that ultimate sacrifice for our sin.  Jesus paid our fine.  IF you can believe that, and accept that, then when you read the word of God (which, yes was written by men, but I believe inspired by God) then it truley speaks to you, and pierces the heart.


----------



## JFS (Dec 5, 2011)

Flatwoods_Hunter said:


> The Bible doesnt speak to the heart of men who arent believers .... See, God created the law (Ten Commandments) which none of us have ever kept.  And because we broke that law, a punishment must be paid....  IF you can believe that, and accept that, then .....



But your premise is entirely circular.  All that talk about god and punishment is based on the bible, which as you just said doesn't mean much unless you are already a believer.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 5, 2011)

Flatwoods_Hunter said:


> The Bible doesnt speak to the heart of men who arent believers, to you it is just foolishness.  The first thing you need to do is ask yourself, what if God does exist. And if He does, and if Heaven or :nono::nono::nono::nono: does exist, where would you go if you died today?  See, God created the law (Ten Commandments) which none of us have ever kept.  And because we broke that law, a punishment must be paid.  Because God is holy and perfect and cannot look upon sin, and just as a true and honeralble judge in our court system must sentence criminals who break our law, we too must be sentenced.  But He sent Jesus to live a sinless life, to be that ultimate sacrifice for our sin.  Jesus paid our fine.  IF you can believe that, and accept that, then when you read the word of God (which, yes was written by men, but I believe inspired by God) then it truley speaks to you, and pierces the heart.



Ask yourself, "what if God exists", "but what if it is not the God of the Bible".....
It puts a whole new spin on things then.


----------



## Flatwoods_Hunter (Dec 8, 2011)

well, as long as you are confident about your choice not to believe, then i guess you can live with a peace of mind.  But what if youre wrong. I want to share the message of Salvation, thats why Im on here.  I dont understand though, why are atheists so determined to disprove God existance if they truely dont believe there is a God.  What is the point? Just asking, not trying to offend you.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 8, 2011)

What if you and I are wrong?


----------



## mtnwoman (Dec 8, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> Where, exactly, did you get the crack you were smoking when you wrote this.  I gotta get me some of that stuff.



Just say no to crack, that's what I tell my young granddaughters when their britches fall down too far...they just laugh and pull their pants up....lol.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 8, 2011)

Flatwoods_Hunter said:


> The Bible doesnt speak to the heart of men who arent believers, to you it is just foolishness.  The first thing you need to do is ask yourself, what if God does exist. And if He does, and if Heaven or :nono::nono::nono::nono: does exist, where would you go if you died today?



My question is, if the bible were true and if Yahweh were real what are some ways that I could confirm that truth? Every way I can think of has not only come up short but leaned toward it being myth.

Approach the question the other way, what kind of world and universe would we have if there was no god at all? That is the universe and world I see.


----------



## StriperAddict (Dec 9, 2011)

I'll answer the original post this way...

Changed lives.


----------



## Flatwoods_Hunter (Dec 9, 2011)

If im wrong, then when i die, im just dead.  Nothing to loose. And the reason you cant prove it with any type of science is why its called faith.  The reason this world has so much death and destruction is because sin entered this world and God cursed it. (Genesis).   Good debate guys.  Im just glad God is being talked about, one day maybe all this talk will do some good.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 9, 2011)

I can think of more appealing fairy tales to take on faith but to each his own. Yeah when your dead it won't matter but don't fool yourself into thinking there isn't a cost in this life.


----------

