How do we know that scripture is Inspired?

[Randy_Carson]

You say that the tract doesn’t say that an accurate text=accurate history. It’s true that it doesn’t say so in so many words.

Or by implication.

But after the section on textual accuracy, ending “we can work from it with confidence,” the tract goes on immediately to say "Next we take a look at what the Bible, considered merely as a history, tells us. . . " At no point does it again consider the question of historical accuracy.

The complete historical accuracy of the Bible is taken for granted from that point on, and the only thing that might possibly be an argument for the historicity of the Bible is the textual-criticism argument.

Then your beef is with the brevity of the tract and not with the argument. Or rather that one step in the argument was omitted. There should have been a paragraph covering the historical accuracy of the NT - an accuracy which is confirmed again and again and again by archaeological findings which are undeniable and unambiguous.

So take your pick: either the tract is saying that textual accuracy=historical accuracy or it is assuming historical accuracy without even trying to argue for it. Either supposition is fatal to the argument.

Edwin

So, in CONCLUSION (in the hope that we may NEVER have this dispute arising in this forum AGAIN to the detriment of those weaker brethren among us whose faith is FAR LESS certain than your own), let’s agree that inclusion of two or three examples of the historical accuracy of the NT would be helpful. How’s this:

• The Jewish historian, Josephus, recorded the following:
  Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and many of Greek origin. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day. (Josephus, Testimonium Flavium in Antiquities of the Jews, AD 93-94, reconstructed by Meier).
• In 1961, the discovery of an inscription of Pontius Pilate was the first extra-biblical corroboration of the existence of the man who condemned Jesus.
• In 1990, the burial grounds of Caiaphas, the high priest, were discovered in a cave in the southern part of Jerusalem providing the refutation of arguments against the historicity of this important biblical figure.
• In the 19th century, archaeologists finally discovered the pool where Jesus cured a sick man as recorded in John 5. The pool is named Bethesda, it is located near the Sheep Gate, and it has five porches - just as John accurately recorded eighteen centuries earlier.

Maybe I’ll add this to MY version of the Spiral Argument to eliminate any dispute about the soundness of the argument when I post it in the future.

Will that satisfy you?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Now if the question asked “what are some of the reasons why we believe the Bible is inspired, and how do we answer arguments against its inspiration,” that would be a constructive way of proceeding.

Edwin

Dr. Tait-

I have a question: In your personal opinion, what are some of the reasons why we believe the Bible is inspired, and how do we answer arguments against its inspiration?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Many of which either

a) are claimed to be prophecies in the NT but can easily be interpreted otherwise
b) may have been written after the event took place, or
c) may not actually have been fulfilled (i.e., we can’t prove that the fulfilling event is historical rather than something that was written that way in order to match the prophecy)

How many prophecies remain when you eliminate these three categories? And you must do that if you are trying to prove the Bible from fulfilled prophecy.

There is no knock-down proof. As with anything else worth believing, you have to weigh up all kinds of factors and decide what is the most plausible explanation of the existence of the Bible, in the context of all the other things you have good reason to believe.

You don’t know for sure. You believe. Not without reasons, but without conclusive proof.

Edwin

Did Jesus believe that the arguments from prophecy concerning Himself were valid?

Luke 24:27
27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

Did Paul?

Acts 28:23
They arranged to meet Paul on a certain day, and came in even larger numbers to the place where he was staying. He witnessed to them from morning till evening, explaining about the kingdom of God, and from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets he tried to persuade them about Jesus.

“Jesus found himself in the Old Testament, a thing that some modern scholars do not seem to be able to do.” - AT Robertson

 

[Randy_Carson]

The Argument from Prophecy

1. 
   *]There is a powerful and remarkable resemblance between the collection of ancient messianic prophecies and the events connected with the life of Jesus.
   *]This remarkable resemblance is due to either necessity, chance, human design or divine design.
   *]It is not due to necessity, chance or human design.
   *]Therefore, the remarkable resemblance is due to divine design.
   
   The defense of each premise above would run several pages; however, the defenses are extensive.

 

[clem456]

We know that scripture is inspired because

treat people the same way you want them to treat you

and

love one another as I have loved you

and

I have loved you with an everlasting love

…
all these words breathe life and well being into those who live them.
These words “make the world go 'round”.
Through the person of Christ who embodies these words, the Holy Spirit breathes a continuous living action into them, for the good of all humanity.
I do not need to prove the historical accuracy of the bible’s claims to observe the life-giving quality, the Inspiration, of these words. Inspiration has it’s own living power in the life of Christ, through his community, above historical proof.

 

[Lucy107]

Because I’m right, and you are wrong.

Just. That. Simple.

And you’re a member of the Catholic Church, and he isn’t. Nor am I.
Yeah. You can always rub that into people’s faces.

 

[Lucy107]

The Christian faith is entirely logical and reasonable. God has given us our reason and He expects us to use it. As an apologist, I try to provide as much accurate information as I can to those who have questions in order to remove any logical or factual impediments to intellectual acceptance of truth. Beyond that, each person must respond to God as (s)he and God desire.

So let’s get this straight:

Anyone who doesn’t agree with what you say
is disagreeing with God

-?

 

[Randy_Carson]

And you’re a member of the Catholic Church, and he isn’t. Nor am I.
Yeah. You can always rub that into people’s faces.

Dr. Tait wrote:

This is a glaring logical fallacy. You know this, because I’ve pointed it out many times before. So what is your excuse for continuing to use it?

My reason for continuing to use a valid argument that he does not agree with is:

Because I’m right, and [he is] wrong [about the weakness of the argument].

This has nothing to do with the fact that he is not a Catholic.

 

[Lucy107]

Thanks for that.
It’s all good and solid stuff. It reinforces the faith. It can bring one to the faith.
But maybe the point Lucy is making is… it’s unlikely to draw one who does not have faith, into the faith.

Some of us already have an interest in Catholicism, but we feel pushed away by some of those arguments as listed earlier, like those from historicity.

 

[Randy_Carson]

So let’s get this straight:

Anyone who doesn’t agree with what you say
is disagreeing with God

-?

:nope:

Read more carefully. What I said was:

As an apologist, I try to provide as much accurate information as I can to those who have questions in order to remove any logical or factual impediments to intellectual acceptance of truth. Beyond that, each person must respond to God as (s)he and God desire.

Aquinas said that God acts upon the will which acts upon the intellect.

All I’m doing is providing as many “Catholic Answers” as I can to enable the intellect to see how perfectly reasonable the faith is and to respond to the will and ultimately to God.

 

[clem456]

Some of us already have an interest in Catholicism, but we feel pushed away by some of those arguments as listed earlier, like those from historicity.

Although I agree that the historical argument might not be the most convincing, I do not see why you feel pushed away from Catholicism by exposing the historical elements.
I’m not objecting to your objection, I just don’t see the rationale for it. Those historical elements can aid us in the development of our faith.

Is it that the insistence on historicity somehow limits inspiration? (which it can do if improperly applied)

 

[Lucy107]

:nope:

Read more carefully. What I said was:

As an apologist, I try to provide as much accurate information as I can to those who have questions in order to remove any logical or factual impediments to intellectual acceptance of truth. Beyond that, each person must respond to God as (s)he and God desire.

Aquinas said that God acts upon the will which acts upon the intellect.

All I’m doing is providing as many “Catholic Answers” as I can to enable the intellect to see how perfectly reasonable the faith is and to respond to the will and ultimately to God.

You’re still implying that anyone who doesn’t agree with what you say is disagreeing with God.

 

[Lucy107]

Although I agree that the historical argument might not be the most convincing, I do not see why you feel pushed away from Catholicism by exposing the historical elements.
I’m not objecting to your objection, I just don’t see the rationale for it. Those historical elements can aid us in the development of our faith.

Is it that the insistence on historicity somehow limits inspiration? (which it can do if improperly applied)

It’s like the Catholics who present those arguments want me to be exactly the kind of Catholic they want me to be; and it’s not just the arguments from historicity; it’s also the other ones from miracles, from prophecy etc…

As if there exists a mold for “being Catholic” and everyone who has any aspiration for Catholicism must fit into it, lest he or she be declared an atheist, a pagan, irrational, or some other bad thing.

Those arguments are like a Procrustean bed.
I feel horrible about it.

The people who are born and raised into Catholicism actually have a lot of freedom in how they justify their faith, if they justify it at all.

But we outsiders/newcomers are supposed to be like some kind of puppets, like robots, from the same series at that.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Some of us already have an interest in Catholicism, but we feel pushed away by some of those arguments as listed earlier, like those from historicity.

Then don’t pay attention to those arguments.

However, Paul REASONED with the men of Thessalonica:

Acts 17:2
And Paul went in, as was his custom, and for three weeks he reasoned with them from the scriptures,

And Peter encouraged us:

1 Peter 3:15
Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence

So, we reason and defend what we believe.

Finally, the Christian faith is rooted in a historical claim: namely, that Jesus Christ was crucified on a cross and rose to life again as the ultimate proof of His claim to be God.

Shying away from the strong historical evidence that supports our faith weakens our ability to convince an increasingly skeptical world of the truth of the Gospel.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You’re still implying that anyone who doesn’t agree with what you say is disagreeing with God.

If someone says, “The Catholic Church teaches that everyone should worship Mary”, and I show them that this is simply not true, have I made any claim that disagreeing with me is disagreeing with God?

 

[Randy_Carson]

It’s like the Catholics who present those arguments want me to be exactly the kind of Catholic they want me to be; and it’s not just the arguments from historicity; it’s also the other ones from miracles, from prophecy etc…

As if there exists a mold for “being Catholic” and everyone who has any aspiration for Catholicism must fit into it, lest he or she be declared an atheist, a pagan, irrational, or some other bad thing.

Those arguments are like a Procrustean bed.
I feel horrible about it.

The people who are born and raised into Catholicism actually have a lot of freedom in how they justify their faith, if they justify it at all.

But we outsiders/newcomers are supposed to be like some kind of puppets, like robots, from the same series at that.

Nope. You are just as free as the cradle Catholics are.

At least, that is my experience as a convert to Catholicism.

 

[Lucy107]

Then don’t pay attention to those arguments.

How could I not, when they are shoved down my throat? Or when I see that others get those arguments shoved down their throats?

It seems that the way Catholicism is (sometimes) taught is part of the Catholic doctrine as well, even if not specifically written down as such.

1 Peter 3:15
Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence

Oh, the irony.

So, we reason and defend what we believe.

Why would you need to defend it? I realize you’re told to do so, but I don’t understand why defend it.

Shying away from the strong historical evidence that supports our faith weakens our ability to convince an increasingly skeptical world of the truth of the Gospel.

I really don’t think you are going to convince any genuine skeptics that way.

It seems to me that by using all those secular arguments, you induce a kind of overjustification effect in people; ie. you achieve just the opposite of what you intended.

Many people have an inkling for the Divine, an interest; an intrinsic motivation; maybe nothing specific, but it is a small flame. But then preachers come with all those secular arguments, and they subdue that flame, or cloud the person’s mind so that the person themselves can not see that flame anymore.

 

[Lucy107]

If someone says, “The Catholic Church teaches that everyone should worship Mary”, and I show them that this is simply not true, have I made any claim that disagreeing with me is disagreeing with God?

But we’re not talking about such examples.

You were talking about the intellect, as if you are the arbiter of intellect.

Nope. You are just as free as the cradle Catholics are.

At least, that is my experience as a convert to Catholicism.

You have a Protestant background. That surely prepared you to fiercely hold your ground no matter what.

 

[Randy_Carson]

How could I not, when they are shoved down my throat? Or when I see that others get those arguments shoved down their throats?

It seems that the way Catholicism is (sometimes) taught is part of the Catholic doctrine as well, even if not specifically written down as such.

Oh, the irony.

Why would you need to defend it? I realize you’re told to do so, but I don’t understand why defend it.

I really don’t think you are going to convince any genuine skeptics that way.

It seems to me that by using all those secular arguments, you induce a kind of overjustification effect in people; ie. you achieve just the opposite of what you intended.

Many people have an inkling for the Divine, an interest; an intrinsic motivation; maybe nothing specific, but it is a small flame. But then preachers come with all those secular arguments, and they subdue that flame, or cloud the person’s mind so that the person themselves can not see that flame anymore.

Lucy-

Why are you here? Catholic Answers is the world’ foremost Catholic apologetics organization, and in addition to all of its efforts in print and on radio to explain and defend the Catholic faith, it hosts this website where people who like to discuss these topics may do so.

But you aren’t comfortable with reasoned arguments for Christianity it seems, and you feel like you’re having them shoved down your throat.

So, why not log off and go do something that is more fun?

 

[Lucy107]

Why are you here?

I am trying to fit myself into Catholicism.
But not at all costs. I’m trying to figure out at what costs, where my limits are.

But you aren’t comfortable with reasoned arguments for Christianity it seems, and you feel like you’re having them shoved down your throat.

I don’t think your arguments are particularly reasoned.

So, why not log off and go do something that is more fun?

Ah … never hope that a preacher will understand you …