The Bible: Miracles Required to Believe It's the Word of God?

As I said I'm not a Christian. It's just that I don't think that we should use bad arguments against Christianity - and any argument that assumes that fundamentalism is the norm is a strawman when directed against Christianity as a whole. Also I certainly wouldn't want Christians to get the false idea that they have to be fundamentalists.So I don't seek any message from any God - things that don't exist don't send messages.So on to your points1) Christians do agree that God has communicated with humanity. They do NOT have to believe that the Bible IS that communication - although they agree that it contains records of such communication.2) While the points listed are either subjective or wrong, even if they were entirely true they do not support the fundamentalist view over mainstream Christian views. The whole thing rests on a massive false dichotomy - either God wrote the Bible or had nothing whatever to do with it. And that assumption isn't even mentioned, let alone defended.3) This brings us back to the start of the thread. The Bible DOESN'T say it. What they mean is "I say God said it, and God isn't allowed to disagree with ME". Which is blasphemous to any real Christian.So the first points rest on the hidden assumption that fundamentalism is the only possible view for Christians while the third insists that fundamentalist doctrine - supposedly based on the Bible - actually dictates what the Bible says.It seems that we ran into the same sort of fundamentalists. You were just deceived into thinking that they knew what they were talking about.

You have to remember that in the days when the New Testament was written, several events were true at that time in History. A small yet growing band of people had experienced a shared supernatural event with the Death, Burial, and Ressurrection of Jesus Christ. There testimony sounded incredible yet it has corroboration. Each one of them had virtually the same tale to tell. Formally written down before 80 A.D., it can be argued that some of these people were eyewitnesses to a valid, defineable, and documentable supernatural series of events. Skeptics can argue the case for heresay, but SOME skeptics are never convinced anyway! If one man runs up to me and swears that a purple unicorn is eating flowers in the park, I am unconvinced. If three people tell me that they have heard legends of such a unicorn, I will carefully determine their mental state and search the park briefly. If, however, 500 people told of such a legend and I saw that these 500 people were sane and sparkling with hope, I may believe in this purple unicorn based on these people as my evidence. If, once I profess my belief in this Unicorn, MY life changes, then I KNOW that the unicorn lives![This message has been edited by Phatboy, 02-19-2004]

You do realise that none of the Gospels can be reliably traced to eyewitnesses, that the synoptic Gospels involve large amounts of copying and that John - at least as we have it - was probably written after 80 AD (and Luke may have been, too).Of the Synoptics Mark is considered most likely to be the first written - but the only near contemporary attribution we have puts it down to Peter's secretary retelling the stories he had heard from Peter. In the wrong order. Even that makes it a second-hand account, and if the other synoptic Gospels copied from Mark (which they must have done if the information we have on Mark's authorship is true) they contain substantial amounts of material that is third-hand at best.

First of all, while I respect your intelligence Paul, I will say that your facts are not conclusive. There is disagreement in this area. I could pull together four or five scholars who interpret the authenticity differently than what you have described. What does this prove, however? That I myself am relying on another source to prove to you the authenticity of my Faith? I will say again that whether it was Peters Mother In Law, Agnes of God or Joan of Arc that claimed a divine impartation at that time, the fact is that the early Church fathers agreed with the source. We may attack the church of that era and find many deplorable instances of non holy people within the institution. Modern Christians such as myself who know a true impartation when they see it will also connect with that small minority of people in the early Church who saw and recorded such imparted and inspired writings. The church has no true and critical argument within itself. The argument is between the church and the humanist scholars who have a different source and criteria than does the church. Technically, I will never prove to you my case based on concrete evidence unless you were to know me personally. Until then, we will continue to duel with verbal light sabers. Peace and Love.

What I've put forward is a mainstream view, even avoiding the controversy over Q. Indeed the view on the authorship of Mark comes FROM the early Church. You may reject that and insist that Mark was an eyewitness account but you cannot appeal to the views of the early Church to support that claim.

OK, I'll bite. What are the basic criteria that define and quantify a "mainstream" view, by definition?

Generally speaking a mainstrem view would be the consensus of the majority of those people whose views are relevant.I am sure that you can find conservative scholars who disagree with the mainstream but I've yet to see any good arguments that the three synoptic Gospels were all written by eyewitnesses (indeed even fundamentalists tend to retract this claim as soon as Luke is mentioned). Nor have I seen any good argument that any of them were.

Provable by presupposition of affirmation or provable by presupposition of denial? See what I mean? I want to believe and you do not. The facts are inconclusive in and of themselves.

Eh? I see nothing in what I wrote to suggest that I am defining relevance based on their stance. The relevant people for determining the authorship of the Bible would surely be those Bible Scholars and historians who have made a study of the issue. Maybe you insist that only conservative sources should count but I've already pointed out good reasons to suspect that their views have little evidential basis.And if the facts are inconclusive then my point that the Gospels cannot be reliably attributed to eyewitnesses is necessarily correct.

Yeah, and the weirdest thing to me is that living by a book is failing horribly for literalists. They are divided and, statistically speaking, they can't live by their own morals any better than those who don't have their morals.I maintain that "the Book" (which is really some books and letters) tells them to live by a Spirit rather than a book, but they think that's dangerous. It's weird that any group failing as miserably as they are could worry about some other route being dangerous. I think it's because each of them is hoping that he or she individually is going to do better at their path than their average member has historically done....edited for confusing typo[This message has been edited by truthlover, 02-19-2004]

Which early Church fathers? Valentinus? Marcion?
Which source? Those that include the Markan appendix or those that do not?It seems far more accurate to note that the extant source was made to agree with those early Church fathers who won the sectarian squabbles of the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE.As for the Synoptics, I've always appreciated the Rutgers site which notes:

quote:

---

• Faith is no excuse for ignorance!
• Adherence to any tradition in disregard for textual evidence is sheer superstition.

Synoptic Gospels Primer

---

[This message has been edited by ConsequentAtheist, 02-19-2004]

Well I am a big boy and I can face my fears. My fear is not that the Bible is untrue. As I have told you, I believe that we are in a spiritual war, and I would allow for some surprises which my enemy would use to throw me and my fellow believers off track. I will concede this argument to you, but I will maintain that the story is essentially true. There was a literal Fall. A separation of spirits.
I will proclaim the Holy Spirit. The comforter. God incarnate. I will acknowledge that I am NOT God, but that He lives! Thus, I am not a pantheist. I will admit that perhaps the stories have been twisted but that He who lives is above all confusion. All uncertainty. Do you see where I am coming from? Do you say that it is a blind Faith that I have? Consequent: If I were to be less ignorant, do you assume that I would have less Faith in God and more in myself? For I assert the opposite. He is the source of all knowledge. Not human intellectuals.[This message has been edited by Phatboy, 02-19-2004]

While I understand the sarcasm, this really isn't an accurate question. Valentinus and Marcion may belong to some version, even a popular one, of 2nd century Christianity, but they are not known as church fathers. The term "early church fathers" refers to a specific group of writings. This statement is very unclear, at least to me. First, I don't think it's "far more accurate" to say that any writings (I can't figure out which "extant source" you mean) were changed, which is what I have to assume "made to agree" means. At least, it's not accurate, as far as I know, to say that any extant writings were changed so that even though they were once gnostic, they now appear to be "orthodox." (Sorry if orthodox is offensive, but it seems the best term. I guess catholic is the word the fathers used.)Were you saying something other than that?Also, I follow the idea that gnosticism was so popular in the 2nd century that in some places it was not only the predominant, but the only known form of Christianity. However, I don't know that "won the sectarian squabbles" produces a very accurate picture. The squabbles occurred, the split between catholic and gnostic was quite complete by the end of the 2nd century, and then the gnostics, still quite large at the time, died out, while the catholics did not.The catholics quite naturally rejected gnostic writings and kept their own. The later differences were not minor. They didn't have the same god.Having said all that' I agree with your general complaint about the statement, "the early church fathers agreed with the source." They agreed with sources that are not in the Bible, too, and depending on which church father, they rejected some letters that are in the Bible. The final form of the Bible wasn't "officially" decided until the 1500's, and the first time a list completely agrees with the Protestant/Catholic version is AD 360 or so. And I don't think Phatboy is Roman Catholic or Orthodox, so why he puts stock in the councils, I don't understand.

Doggone useful link, that synoptics primer of yours. Short and to the point, giving plenty of spots to launch off from if something catches one's fancy. I cannot imagine anything being a better starting point.

quote:

---

Well, I pretty much agreed with everything you said. Man, communication is a problem across the internet. Well, at least for me it is.

---

Yeah, I find there is a great deal of communications problems, even with people I am on the same side of an argument.That said, I think everything has been cleared up at this point, and the additional info didn't hurt.As ever, you are one of the most balanced posters I have seen, and appreciate that you took the time to work with me on this.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)