How do we know that scripture is Inspired?

[ericc]

But I don’t see how the appeal to historicity can be at all effective for one who is a doubter.

Christianity is not a religion of the book, it is an invitation to a relationship.

True. God must draw you first. Question is: Will you cooperate?

Or must He prove to you that he is worthy of your worship before you worship?

 

[Ignatius]

True. God must draw you first. Question is: Will you cooperate?

This is the Central question in every persons life.

 

[clem456]

True. God must draw you first. Question is: Will you cooperate?

Or must He prove to you that he is worthy of your worship before you worship?

Yes that is the challenge. Very timely.
I am currently reading
w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20130629_enciclica-lumen-fidei.html
Francis uses the word draw 13 times throughout.
Here is one passage:

1. Since faith is a light, it draws us into itself, inviting us to explore ever more fully the horizon which it illumines, all the better to know the object of our love. Christian theology is born of this desire. Clearly, theology is impossible without faith; it is part of the very process of faith, which seeks an ever deeper understanding of God’s self-disclosure culminating in Christ. It follows that theology is more than simply an effort of human reason to analyze and understand, along the lines of the experimental sciences. God cannot be reduced to an object.** He is a subject who makes himself known and perceived in an interpersonal relationship. Right faith orients reason to open itself to the light which comes from God, so that reason, guided by love of the truth, can come to a deeper knowledge of God.** The great medieval theologians and teachers rightly held that theology, as a science of faith, is a participation in God’s own knowledge of himself. It is not just our discourse about God, but first and foremost the acceptance and the pursuit of a deeper understanding of the word which God speaks to us, the word which God speaks about himself, for he is an eternal dialogue of communion, and he allows us to enter into this dialogue.[33] Theology thus demands the humility to be “touched” by God, admitting its own limitations before the mystery, while striving to investigate, with the discipline proper to reason, the inexhaustible riches of this mystery.

 

[Lucy107]

True. God must draw you first. Question is: Will you cooperate?

Or must He prove to you that he is worthy of your worship before you worship?

You’re rushing ahead.
Let people catch a breath. Let people first actually be drawn by God. And then take it from there.

 

[ynotzap]

Oh. That’s bold.

God can take away my possessions. Since the Church is God’s representative, the Church can take away my possessions too …

Answer: God can take away what is His, what do we really have as our own, we were given what we have. The Church is not God, it is the collective group of the faithful, that constitutes the Mystical Body of Christ, with Christ as it’s head, and the Holy Spirit as it’s soul, and the faithful as it’s members The Church can not take away your possessions

God can take away my mind. Since the Church is God’s representative, the Church can take away my mind too …

Answer: True, and false on the second half.

God can kill me. Since the Church is God’s representative, the Church can kill me too …

Answer: True again, but false on the second half.

Since Jesus chose St.Peter to represent Him didn’t make Peter God, but the head of His church on earth. Peter was like all of the other Apostles, except that he was appointed the first Pope responsible for the leadership of the Faithful in matter of faith and morals, and Jesus promised to be with Him in his leadership, the gates of Hell will not prevail against him and the church. And he was endowed with infallibility in matters of faith and morals and with divine assistance.

 

[PRmerger]

We have multiple attestation, and the fact that the first witnesses are said to have been women is strong evidence for the authenticity of the story.

How do we know this to be true historically?

Are there any other sources which state that it was women who were the first witnesses of the resurrection?

 

[Contarini]

How do we know this to be true historically?

Are there any other sources which state that it was women who were the first witnesses of the resurrection?

I said “it was women who were said to be witnesses of the resurrection.” What we know is that the texts say this. All four Gospels, which counts as “multiple attestation” (Synoptics and John). The claim that it was women is a reliable one because women’s testimony was not highly regarded in that society. Hence, no one is likely to have fabricated such a claim. That is what I said in the earlier post, so your reply doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. You seem to be working off the assumption that I don’t think anything in the NT is reliable if it isn’t corroborated by extra-Biblical evidence. Which of course is silly and I have never said anything of the sort. (Obviously more sources of more different kinds would be nice, from a historian’s point of view. But we have to work with what we have. We don’t have reliable non-Islamic sources on early Islam either, or reliable non-Buddhist sources–or really any historical sources at all from anywhere near the relevant period–on early Buddhism. The Torah was probably written down hundreds of years after the events it describes. We are actually in much, much better shape with regard to Christianity than with regard to these other major religious traditions.)

Edwin

 

[PRmerger]

I said “it was women who were said to be witnesses of the resurrection.” What we know is that the texts say this. All four Gospels, which counts as “multiple attestation” (Synoptics and John). The claim that it was women is a reliable one because women’s testimony was not highly regarded in that society. Hence, no one is likely to have fabricated such a claim. That is what I said in the earlier post, so your reply doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. You seem to be working off the assumption that I don’t think anything in the NT is reliable if it isn’t corroborated by extra-Biblical evidence. Which of course is silly and I have never said anything of the sort. (Obviously more sources of more different kinds would be nice, from a historian’s point of view. But we have to work with what we have. We don’t have reliable non-Islamic sources on early Islam either, or reliable non-Buddhist sources–or really any historical sources at all from anywhere near the relevant period–on early Buddhism. The Torah was probably written down hundreds of years after the events it describes. We are actually in much, much better shape with regard to Christianity than with regard to these other major religious traditions.)

Edwin

Would you mind ceasing and desisting with the use of the word “silly” (and any other such condescending adjectives) when objecting to others’ POV?

It’s offensive and supercilious.

 

[Contarini]

Would you mind ceasing and desisting with the use of the word “silly” (and any other such condescending adjectives) when objecting to others’ POV?

It’s offensive and supercilious.

No, I was using the word “silly” to refer to the position you were erroneously ascribing to me. My point was, “it would be silly to say that nothing in the NT can be trusted unless there is extra-Biblical corroboration, and so obviously I said nothing of the sort.”

Please cease and desist ascribing to me positions that contradict the ones I have actually maintained.

That is offensive, especially when those positions are, as in the above case, silly.

Edwin

 

[PRmerger]

No, I was using the word “silly” to refer to the position you were erroneously ascribing to me. My point was, “it would be silly to say that nothing in the NT can be trusted unless there is extra-Biblical corroboration, and so obviously I said nothing of the sort.”

Please cease and desist ascribing to me positions that contradict the ones I have actually maintained.

That is offensive, especially when those positions are, as in the above case, silly.

Edwin

You use the word often, Edwin. It’s arrogant to appeal to that word with such a high frequency.

It represents a disdain for any position that is not consonant with your own.

 

[Contarini]

You use the word often, Edwin. It’s arrogant to appeal to that word with such a high frequency.

It represents a disdain for any position that is not consonant with your own.

No, it represents a disdain for silly opinions. Opinions I think silly are a subset of opinions with which I disagree.

But in this case I was calling a hypothetical position I do not hold silly. I don’t see how anyone was being insulted in that statement. I see that I didn’t word myself clearly and you reasonably concluded I was saying that your statement was silly, but in fact I wasn’t.

I apologize for the lack of clarity, and also for the general habit of calling opinions silly without due consideration. I won’t promise never to use the word, and it certainly isn’t true that I call all opinions I disagree with silly. But I’m sure I do use it too often, and thanks for pointing this out.

Now how about acknowledging that you misrepresented me?

I do not think that something found in the NT needs to be corroborated with outside evidence in order to be historically trustworthy.

Edwin

 

[ajecphotos]

To be honest guys, this is getting rather silly now!

 

[icedbun]

More than 5000 fulfilled prophesies.

That’s how we start to know.

-Tim-

Yes, but the non-Catholic is bound to point out that the so-called prophecies are actually the Gospel writers looking at the OT and finding stories they could use to describe Jesus. So they are not really prophecies at all. In fact the Virgin birth is a result of Matthew using the Greek text of the OT that incorrectly translated the word ‘young woman’ in Hebrew to ‘virgin’ in Greek

Now, if the NT made precise predictions that we could now see coming true…

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, but the non-Catholic is bound to point out that the so-called prophecies are actually the Gospel writers looking at the OT and finding stories they could use to describe Jesus. So they are not really prophecies at all. In fact the Virgin birth is a result of Matthew using the Greek text of the OT that incorrectly translated the word ‘young woman’ in Hebrew to ‘virgin’ in Greek

Now, if the NT made precise predictions that we could now see coming true…

Why do you think the Gospel writers lied about Jesus being divine?

 

[icedbun]

Why do you think the Gospel writers lied about Jesus being divine?

Certainly not! I am just saying that the argument using prophecies is, frankly, not convincing to those who do not believe.

 

[PRmerger]

Certainly not! I am just saying that the argument using prophecies is, frankly, not convincing to those who do not believe.

But if the argument is that inspired authors of the NT simply imagined the prophecies into their texts…that’s the same as saying that they lied. Especially about the part about Jesus rising from the dead.

 

[clem456]

The point of prophecy is not to accurately predict the future, as some sort of esp.
Prophets have a vocation to proclaim God’s will and desire, warning us of consequences, giving us hope for things to come, expressing God’s love for us.

We like for prophecies to “come true”, as if their coming true validates them. Every prophecy has it’s purpose whether or not it has “come true”. Not all prophecies can be affirmed with an historical proof. For a Christian, that is somewhat beside the point.

As a Christian I certainly believe that many prophecies came to be, but I don’t expect an unbeliever to accept that as “proof” of the inspired nature of scripture. If you don’t believe in God the idea of inspiration doesn’t mean much.

 

[juliamajor]

Respectfully:

That tract is shear brilliance–you seem to have missed the genius behind it. It makes perfect sense, viewed from a historical perspective. That’s not to say now, today, start with the Bible as a historical text; it’s a reference to the fact that before the Books were universally acclaimed to be inspired, they were sitting there, amongst piles of other ‘historical’ texts. Their consistency with one another, and with the Tradition to which they testified, is what set them apart; it’s what proves they are inspired. Take away the very Tradition to which they testify, and there is nothing to distinguish them from the uninspired.

“We walk by faith and not by sight” Faith assumes a different kind of " seeing".
Most of what I see written above seems more concerned with exegesis , not proof of inspiration. Extra biblical proofs are to help understand what is being said.Just the historical-critical method or the myriad of other exegetical methods.
Besides how do you prove an intangible , spiritual concept? You can’t .that’s what faith is for.

 

[juliamajor]

This is the part you seemed to skip over:

“Using what is in the Gospels themselves and what we find in extra-biblical writings from the early centuries…”

And:

“Both the Bible (still taken as merely a historical book, not yet as an inspired one) and other ancient works attest to the fact that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, and teaching authority.”

Both of these statements the historical accuracy of the Bible is judged by the extra-biblical sources from the same time.

y

You are still talking exegesis - understanding what is being said.
Defining inspiration is like trying to prove grace or even the Holy Spirit himself.Try proving it by the methods quoted.

 

[juliamajor]

Given the above, what do you find is good evidence to think that the Bible is divinely inspired?

You’ll never find proof via the scientific method.As St.Augustine ,on a beach, trying to explain (/was it the Trinity or Holy Spirit ?) The Angel on the beach told Augustine that trying to do so would be like the ‘boy’ trying to empty the sea in his hole in the sand.It can’t be done
m