The authenticity of the Bible

[justamoose89]

Of course it was written by Jews: Its Jewish History.

Not all the New Testament was written by Jews. Luke wasn’t a Jew.
I HIGHLY recommend reading Case for Christ. Its by an atheist reporter who went out to disprove Christianity and instead proved it right. He starts off with the validity of Scripture.

The reason we don’t have the Gospels of Thomas, Mary Magdalene, etc, is because they did not meet the criteria that was set for the cannon. When the Bishops of the Church got together to discuss which books would be considered inspired, they considered three criteria:
1.) If the books were widely used in worship
2.) If the author’s were or had direct contact with the apostles
3.) Did not conflict with Church teaching

Keep in mind that most of the non canonical gospels (with the exception of the Gospel of Thomas) were written after the last apostle died, and could therefore not be considered trustworthy accounts of the life of Jesus.

Wow my Gospel and Acts class actually came to use!

 

[po18guy]

If the Bible is fallible and put together by men who picked these specific books in hundreds of different books because they flow with their faith, then why should I believe in the Bible more than the Qu’ran or the Canon Pali?

The bible is neither fallible nor infallible. What it is, is inerrant. Fallibility is solely a human trait. No physical object can be infallible - only humans can. The bible does not err - when properly interpreted by the Church which Jesus founded. The teaching of the Catholic Church, which produced the bible, is without error. The Pope, as spokesman for the entire Church, is infallible when he speaks to the entire Church in the areas of faith and morals.

When you run into trouble is when you separate the bible from the Church which produced it and has the authority to interpret it. Printed words can be twisted and misinterpreted to mean almost anything. The neo-nazis, for example, quote scripture in support of their racism. The devil quoted scripture in his temptation of Christ. So, any writing must be properly interpreted. The Catholic Church has the authority to properly interpret scripture.

You will note that there are many prophecies in the Old Testament. Those prophecies reached their fulfillment in Christ. Thus, when earth received the Incarnation (Christ given flesh to dwell among us), prophecies were rendered true. The writers of the New Testament were promised by Christ, and received, the guidance of the Holy Spirit, so that they could teach all truth. The portion of the truth which they wrote down is inerrant. If you read Paul, Peter and the letters of John, you see many warnings about false christs, false teachers and false prophets. These are New Testament prophecies. We, you and each of us, live in the age of false teachers and prophets. All who have come since the day of Christ, and who claim to be “the way”, are false teachers, false prophets and false christs. The writings you mention are of that type.

God’s covenants with man have been divinely revealed to man. Christ is the last covenant between God and man. He sacrificed everything for the sake of the Kingdom. Read the others. You will see that they did not sacrifice, but rather profited from their teachings. This is a sign that they are false. Christ teaches us to sacrifice in this life, which is short, in order to receive rewards in the next life, which is eternal.

 

[KShaft]

IT’s not arguable that eyewitnesses relied on Tradition. Nothing in the New Testament differs from Tradition.

Thats not tradition, thats eyewitness testimony.

In Baghdad when we were out after a badguy, after we had got him a stryker vehicle struck our hummer because of the RPG cage. It adds width to the vehicle and thats what struck us. Its kind of funny.

Now me telling you this is eyewitness testimony to an actual event.

Now you hearing it from some of the guys who were in my unit that heard it from me or the other guys who went out on that mission with me, that would be oral tradition.

The Gospel according to Mark could be considered tradition depending on if he wrote it down from memory or was simply transcribing it for Peter.

 

[diggerdomer]

Thats not tradition, thats eyewitness testimony.

In Baghdad when we were out after a badguy, after we had got him a stryker vehicle struck our hummer because of the RPG cage. It adds width to the vehicle and thats what struck us. Its kind of funny.

Now me telling you this is eyewitness testimony to an actual event.

Now you hearing it from some of the guys who were in my unit that heard it from me or the other guys who went out on that mission with me, that would be oral tradition.

The Gospel according to Mark could be considered tradition depending on if he wrote it down from memory or was simply transcribing it for Peter.

I am sorry. I have no clue on how your post relates to my post that you quoted. Can you rephrase? Thanks.

 

[KShaft]

Its simply an example or oral tradition vs eye witness testimony.

Mark could be either depending on the source.

If he copied it down verbatim from Peter, then it is eyewitness testimony. If he wrote it down from memory(but not word for word) then it is oral tradition.

Luke has elements of both. He was incredibly accurate about all the details, so he used various forms of sources, oral tradition, documentation, eyewitness testimony etc…

Mathew and John should be considered eyewitness accounts for the most part.

 

[diggerdomer]

Its simply an example or oral tradition vs eye witness testimony.

Mark could be either depending on the source.

If he copied it down verbatim from Peter, then it is eyewitness testimony. If he wrote it down from memory(but not word for word) then it is oral tradition.

Luke has elements of both. He was incredibly accurate about all the details, so he used various forms of sources, oral tradition, documentation, eyewitness testimony etc…

Mathew and John should be considered eyewitness accounts for the most part.

Thanks.

One note on your comment on Matt and John, the Catholic Church does not insist that the Gosples are eyewitness accounts. They may or may not be.

 

[abucs]

I’m sorry for for the blurry question that I’m trying to ask, so therefore I’m gonna ask again to those who don’t understand my question:

The main point to the question is how can I trust the Bible when I know that it was hand picked and put together by men? There are actually more books out there than just 66 books in Protestant Bible and 73 books in Catholic and Orthodox Bible, books like the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Judas, the Gospel of Mary Magdelene…

Since the Bible was handpicked and cannonized by men with the same faith, who looked for the same books to support their religion. Therefore why should I believe in the Bible that it was inspired by God?

Perhaps it might be an idea to study the early writers of the Church who have impeccable credentials and see what writings they considered important and authentic. For example :

1. When and who first started citing text from the “Gospel” of Mary Magdeline.
2. When and who first started citing text from the Gospel of Matthew.

 

[simspt]

I’m sorry for for the blurry question that I’m trying to ask, so therefore I’m gonna ask again to those who don’t understand my question:

The main point to the question is how can I trust the Bible when I know that it was hand picked and put together by men? There are actually more books out there than just 66 books in Protestant Bible and 73 books in Catholic and Orthodox Bible, books like the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Judas, the Gospel of Mary Magdelene…

Since the Bible was handpicked and cannonized by men with the same faith, who looked for the same books to support their religion. Therefore why should I believe in the Bible that it was inspired by God?

Most scholars today date the NT docs earlier than the Gnostic material with few exceptions. (you would never know this watching the History channel) An earlier dating while supporting their historicity over other writings does not prove their veracity. Inspiration was most likely viewed more broadly by the early church and not the exclusive possession of the NT docs. I think its important to realize that Jesus called into being a Church, a community and therefore while acknowledging the unique testimomy and preservation of Jesus the NT docs give, the Bible must be put in its place historically. There were Christians before there was a single NT book. Christianity did not start to exist with the New Testament. The Gospels are the tradition of the Church about Jesus. At the end of the day it boils down to faith, being moved by the HS to respond to Jesus who called into being a church.