Why is Scripture true?

[Erich]

That’s according to Tradition…I’m talking about research and scholastic agreements:
The Gospel of Mark was composed first between 65-80 CE

Did you even read the linked article? If you were to collect the external evidence (what the early historians wrote) and the internal evidence (modern literary analysis of the texts), you would know:

• Linguists have confirmed the ancient tradition that Matthew wrote in Hebrew.
• In the early records the Gospel according to Matthew is always listed first.
• Clement of Alexandria, stated that Luke wrote before Mark, so producing the chronological sequence of Matthew-Luke-Mark-John. The Church Fathers were familiar with and used the same order.
• When Jerome made a fresh translation of the New Testament in the fourth century, he chose to adopt the Matthew-Mark-Luke-John sequence. This is why we find this order in our bibles today.
• A growing number of modern literary analysists recognize that Mark borrowed from Matthew and Luke alternately, so confirming the historical evidence that Mark wrote third.
• Both the historical and literary evidence shows that Matthew wrote for the Jews and that Luke wrote for the Gentiles.
• Historical evidence and modern literary evidence, both point to Peter giving a series of talks during which he alternately quoted from both Gospels while adding reminiscences of his own. In this way he was authorising the work of Luke (a non-eyewitness Apostle).

• The words of Peter, as recorded by Mark in shorthand, were distributed to those who made requests. This explains the apparent poor Greek of Mark. His Gospel was not composed in literary Greek, but was an unedited verbatim record of the spoken words of Peter, for whom Greek was not his native tongue.
• By Peter supporting distribution of Mark`s transcript, he was granting it authorisation as an official Gospel.

based on the writings of (among many others):

Papias (c. 60-139) – whose life span overlapped that of the Apostle John by 30-40 years. Papias was the bishop of Hieropolis (about one hundred and fifty kilometers from Ephesus along a good surfaced road), so contact with the Apostle John would have been easy.

Justin Martyr (c. 100-165) – whose last years were spent in Ephesus, where the elderly members of the community would certainly remember the Apostles who had lived in or visited the town, and

Irenaeus (born about 120 AD near Smyrna) – who as a young man frequented the house of bishop Polycarp in Smyrna, who was himself also a disciple of the Apostle John.

From Wiki: "The first canonical gospel written is thought by most scholars to be Mark (c 65-70), which was according to the majority used as a source for the gospels of Matthew and Luke.[2] "

Even aside from the fact that Wiki, by its very nature, is not (and cannot be) a reliable primary source, I ask you “what scholars”?

The theory that Mark’s Gospel was published before Matthew’s is widely held in German and English speaking countries. How did this theory, with little supporting evidence, come to be? The answer can be found in Bismarck and the Four Gospels.

I prefer “most scholars” over “Tradition” any day.

Even if “most scholars” don’t have a leg to stand on? If you only want to admit “contemporary writings” then you certainly can’t use anything which made its first appearance in the 19th century.

 

[PennitentMan]

Did you even read the linked article? If you were to collect the external evidence (what the early historians wrote) and the internal evidence (modern literary analysis of the texts), you would know:
Quote:

• Linguists have confirmed the ancient tradition that Matthew wrote in Hebrew.

Citation please. My sources (Copied below) agree that it was written in Greek, and might have included some Aramaic.

• In the early records the Gospel according to Matthew is always listed first.

So, you are taking church tradition as fact

• Clement of Alexandria, stated that Luke wrote before Mark, so producing the chronological sequence of Matthew-Luke-Mark-John. The Church Fathers were familiar with and used the same order.

So, you are taking church tradition as fact.

• When Jerome made a fresh translation of the New Testament in the fourth century, he chose to adopt the Matthew-Mark-Luke-John sequence. This is why we find this order in our bibles today.

so, you are taking church tradition as fact.

• A growing number of modern literary analysists recognize that Mark borrowed from Matthew and Luke alternately, so confirming the historical evidence that Mark wrote third.

Based on the researched dates as well as linguistical findings (Sources listed below and dates mentioned earlier printed in consensus) Mark wrote first and Matthew and Luke copied and expanded. Please cite your sources.

• Both the historical and literary evidence shows that Matthew wrote for the Jews and that Luke wrote for the Gentiles.

What’s your point? This does not show to dating at all.

• Historical evidence and modern literary evidence, both point to Peter giving a series of talks during which he alternately quoted from both Gospels while adding reminiscences of his own. In this way he was authorising the work of Luke (a non-eyewitness Apostle).

Please cite. There is no evidence of an eye witness account at all.

• The words of Peter, as recorded by Mark in shorthand, were distributed to those who made requests. This explains the apparent poor Greek of Mark. His Gospel was not composed in literary Greek, but was an unedited verbatim record of the spoken words of Peter, for whom Greek was not his native tongue.

So, you base your evidence on a third hand, unconfirmed source? Even if scholars disagree?

• By Peter supporting distribution of Mark`s transcript, he was granting it authorisation as an official Gospel.

So, you are taking church tradition as fact.

based on the writings of (among many others):

Papias (c. 60-139) – whose life span overlapped that of the Apostle John by 30-40 years. Papias was the bishop of Hieropolis (about one hundred and fifty kilometers from Ephesus along a good surfaced road), so contact with the Apostle John would have been easy.

Justin Martyr (c. 100-165) – whose last years were spent in Ephesus, where the elderly members of the community would certainly remember the Apostles who had lived in or visited the town, and

Irenaeus (born about 120 AD near Smyrna) – who as a young man frequented the house of bishop Polycarp in Smyrna, who was himself also a disciple of the Apostle John.

None of these being contemporary sources.

Even aside from the fact that Wiki, by its very nature, is not (and cannot be) a reliable primary source, I ask you “what scholars”?

Wiki is the stepping stone for further research, like any encyclopedia is.

My sources include:
Peter, Kirby
Achtemeier, Paul J.
Meier, John P.
Helms, Randel
Funk, Robert W.
Roy W. Hoover
Crossan,
John Dominic
Eisenman, Robert H.
Ehrman
Brown, Raymond E
Meier, John P
Helmut Koester.
Brown,
Schuyler
Bruce

The theory that Mark’s Gospel was published before Matthew’s is widely held in German and English speaking countries. How did this theory, with little supporting evidence, come to be? The answer can be found in Bismarck and the Four Gospels. 1 source? Oh, and church tradition.

Even if “most scholars” don’t have a leg to stand on?

Pls prove that statement by debunking their work.

If you only want to admit “contemporary writings” then you certainly can’t use anything which made its first appearance in the 19th century.

Contemporary writings are what we base the authenticity of the gospels on. It has nothing to do with the research being done on dating, etc.

Funny how I get asked to cite my sources and then you don’t practice what you preach.

Just be this thread alone is almost enough to convince folks about the doubt cast on the scripture’s truth

 

[Erich]

Citation please.

Please cite your sources.

Please cite.

The answer can be found in Bismarck and the Four Gospels.

Obviously you haven’t even looked at any of the referenced articles.

I had planned to post the list of references just for The Authors of the Gospels, but it would have taken 3 full posts to do so… you can certainly read the article (121-page book, really) and the bibliography yourself.

 

[Erich]

Just be this thread alone is almost enough to convince folks about the doubt cast on the scripture’s truth

From Why, How, and When the Gospels:

For two hundred years those aiming to destroy Christian civilization have been undermining belief in the historical reliability of the Gospels. They have had much success and, even in devout Christian Circles, they have brought about an attitude of widespread hesitation. This has lead to the comprehensive historical evidence, regarding the writing of the Gospels, to be rarely publicized today.
Yet when we go back to the original sources we find that it is easy to build a clear picture of what occurred. **The evidence of ancient historians, modern literary analysis and church documents is available in the booklet: ‘The Authors of the Gospels’, available elsewhere on this web site. However, when examining this evidence in detail, piece by piece, it is easy to lose sight of the overall picture. **This article aims to provide this overall picture while keeping references to a minimum.

        Whilst the first followers of Jesus continued to attend the Temple, they also held meetings of their own. These             consisted of prayer, the singing psalms, listening to teaching from a disciple, meditating on the meaning of the             life of Jesus, and breaking bread together.
         Matthew, a former tax collector, would have been educationally equipped to provide             a structure for the meetings, and this appears to have been the origin of the first Gospel. All the ancient historians             affirm that Matthew wrote this first Gospel.
         The Jews in Palestine spoke Aramaic although Hebrew was still a living language             [1].  We do not know whether Matthew used Aramaic or Hebrew but versions in both languages would have soon             have been put into circulation. Modern analysis has concluded that our Greek Gospel was translated from a Hebrew             version [2]. As Matthew would have checked all versions, they would be of equal authority; and since the apostles             were still living together, we may presume that several or all of them would have read Matthew’s versions before             publication.
         The first part of Matthew’s Gospel shows how the birth of Jesus fulfilled the prophecies             regarding the coming of the Messiah.  The concluding section shows how Christ’s death and resurrection fulfilled             more of them. This was crucial for the first Christians as they were all Jews.
         The middle section is divided into five parts, each consisting of a narrative and             discourse [3]. These open with a unique formula in the Gospels: ‘And it came to pass when Jesus had ended these             words ...’. To develop his five themes, the author took events and stories from various parts of Jesus’ public             life. So by ignoring chronology his writing gives the impression that the public life of Christ lasted one year             only.

(cont’d)

 

[Erich]

(cont’d)

As missionaries travelled throughout the Roman Empire, they would go to the Synagogues to preach first to the Jews. Most of the Jews living outside of Palestine spoke Greek, not Aramaic or Hebrew. So the Greek version of the Gospel would have been ideal for forming these Jewish Christians. They in turn would then preach to the local Gentiles.
For a time this was satisfactory; but Paul, who took the lead in preaching to the Gentiles, saw the need for an account of the ‘good news’ written in a way more meaningful for them. Several attempts had been made to produce a chronological account suitable for the Gentiles. Eventually, however, Paul’s secretary, Luke took the matter in hand. According to the oldest Christian tradition, this was the second Gospel to be written [4]. Luke aimed to produce an account in order (i.e. chronological) and to separate the stories of what Jesus did from what he taught [5].
As part of Luke’s aim to produce a chronological account, he gathered the teaching materials together and placed them in a central section. When borrowing verses from Matthew’s thematic work for his account, it was necessary for him to change many of the introductions so as to prevent apparent contradictions of timing.
Luke had not been a companion of Christ, so his Gospel did not posses the authority of that composed by Matthew. So when Paul and Luke arrived in Rome, they saw the opportunity to have it authenticated by Peter. This appears to have been done by Peter giving a series of talks in Greek based on the two Gospels. He blended them together by quoting from them alternatively, while adding comments of his own.
The infancy narratives, Luke’s central section, and the accounts of the Crucifixion were omitted from the talks because they were too dissimilar to enable blending.
According to the practice of the time, Peter’s secretary, Mark, arranged for the talks to be recorded verbatim in shorthand. The existing Gospels had been well planned to fill the length of a standard papyrus roll. But this new script was much shorter and in the unedited spoken Greek of a man who was not a native speaker in that language.
A large audience attended the talks and, when some of them asked for copies of the shorthand notes, Mark provided them. He provided them without editing out errors of memory, grammar and mannerisms. This is why this Gospel has been judged by many to be in ‘poor’ Greek. We know that Peter at first was indifferent to the transcript being distributed but, when he saw that it was producing good results, he supported its wider dissemination.
Two versions of the talks, known today as Mark’s Gospel, were distributed. Both versions exist today, with our bibles containing the longer one. The shorter version replaces the last twelve verses with a brief ending. It is suggested that Peter was asked questions at the end of his series of talks and the final verses report his replies. These replies were seen as an appendix to the main report and were not always copied.

 

[Erich]

So, you are taking church tradition as fact

It wouldn’t have gotten to be Church Tradition if it had not been based on fact.

 

[PennitentMan]

Obviously you haven’t even looked at any of the referenced articles.

I had planned to post the list of references just for The Authors of the Gospels, but it would have taken 3 full posts to do so… you can certainly read the article (121-page book, really) and the bibliography yourself.

It’s not really impartial sources is it? “In accordance with Clementine Tradition” says it all…

 

[mgull]

It isn’t

it is

You can believe it as true, but there is no standard utilized by all humans that can declare any spiritual truth…as absolutely true.

 

[mgull]

It’s not really impartial sources is it? “In accordance with Clementine Tradition” says it all…

I guess the only thing that qualifies as an impartial source in your book is in fact a source that you reference, which incidentally is anything that is opposed to Christian sources. And i liked your line where you said that you prefer “most scholars” over “traditions” any day, unless of course by “most scholars” you mean Bart Ehrmann…he has been trounced in debate after debate with other “scholars.” Seriously man, do you think that the pope is some goof ball off the street? That guy has been doing nothing but educating himself his whole life!..I wish he had the time to debate everyone who challenged the faith one on one! He is taking on the Muslim faith as we speak, challenging every scholar in that faith. No war against terror will EVER make the strides toward a peaceful world that our Holy Father will make during his pontificate.

God Bless

 

[PennitentMan]

I guess the only thing that qualifies as an impartial source in your book is in fact a source that you reference, which incidentally is anything that is opposed to Christian sources. And i liked your line where you said that you prefer “most scholars” over “traditions” any day, unless of course by “most scholars” you mean Bart Ehrmann…he has been trounced in debate after debate with other “scholars.” Seriously man, do you think that the pope is some goof ball off the street? That guy has been doing nothing but educating himself his whole life!..I wish he had the time to debate everyone who challenged the faith one on one! He is taking on the Muslim faith as we speak, challenging every scholar in that faith. No war against terror will EVER make the strides toward a peaceful world that our Holy Father will make during his pontificate.

God Bless

Ehrman is but one source but since yuo brought it up, interesting how he staerted off being a christian but proper research into the bible made hi see the truth.

People see what they want to see. You just proved my opint by citing Ehrman. Alternately, all the sources you guys quote are cathocli or christian, hardly can itbe called impartial. my sources are at least interested in the truth.

We can go round and round on this I will never be able to make you guys see the light…

 

[Erich]

my sources are at least interested in the truth.

Rather, your sources are at least interested in casting doubt on Church Tradition.

We can go round and round on this I will never be able to make you guys see the light…

Indeed. We can go round and round on this, and maybe eventually you will see the light.

Here is an entire web site created and maintained by a team of scholars (most of whom are American Protestants who know that most fellow Protestants would accept internal evidence only) which has continued to make the case for the Matthew-Luke-Mark sequence based on the interior evidence within the Gospels alone; the web site also has bibliographies of the published works of each team member, a list of resources, and a list of related web sites.

 

[Lazarus_Reborn]

Its not true. It was written by a bunch of old dudes. Its no more or less true than norse gods/myths. Its a good story I will admit with a good message but its most certainly not true. God didnt make a rib women (eve) none of tha thappend. ur all ignorant

 

[PennitentMan]

Rather, your sources are at least interested in casting doubt on Church Tradition.

They’re only interested in the truth. If tradition differs from that, then so be it. You’ll probably still believe it, no matter what evidence and proof anyone shows you, so have at ‘er.

Indeed. We can go round and round on this, and maybe eventually you will see the light.

O have seem the light, hence Atheism.

Here is an entire web site created and maintained by a team of scholars (most of whom are American Protestants who know that most fellow Protestants would accept internal evidence only) which has continued to make the case for the Matthew-Luke-Mark sequence based on the interior evidence within the Gospels alone; the web site also has bibliographies of the published works of each team member, a list of resources, and a list of related web sites.

Okay, so that’s your whole argument…who came first? I stated my case, there’s no need to go around in circles again.

I guess this sidelined the thread a little, deviated from “is it true and reliable” to “who wrote what first”. That doesn’t’ matter to me. I want to know if it’s a reliable source of history, but all I’ve seen shows me that it is not.
See ya around.

 

[mgull]

Ehrman is but one source but since yuo brought it up, interesting how he staerted off being a christian but proper research into the bible made hi see the truth.

 

[mgull]

O have seem the light, hence Atheism.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Hello, all!

I was recently asked the following question by a pastor I ran into at work. I was hoping someone with a more philosophical/theological mind than my own could help me get somewhere with this:

Is scripture true because it is true, or is it true because it is Scripture?

Frankly, I’m having a hard time fully understanding what the question means in the first place, let alone answering it. I guess I’d lean towards the Scripture end. But that’s only my best guess.

(In case this is the wrong forum, it was a toss up whether to post this either here or in the Sacred Scripture. It seemed like a philosopher’s question, though, so I gave this a shot.)

I would greatly appreciate any insight! Thanks!

The answer depends in part on what you think truth is. What the OT meant by “truth” is not necessarily what the (strongly Hellenised) Christian theological tradition understands by it. Are Hebrew emeth, Greek aletheia, Latin veritas, the same thing ?​

Another question: is truth indissolubly related to inerrancy - or can there be error in it, & truth as well; perhaps as the mode of truth ?

Is the “truth” of “the Bible” static - or dynamic ? Or is that question over-simplified ?

A last question: what do you think the Bible is - or does ?

The more questions one asks about this issue, the more there are to answer.

FWIW, ISTM that Christ is the canon of the Bible, & the truth of it too; & that if one is talking about the Christian Bible - howsoever defined; for what after all *is *the Bible ? - one has to think of it not as a thing at all, but as a Person. To think of it as a thing, is to stop at what it made of - but what it is made of, is not its identity: just as our identity as humans is not given by stopping at the minerals of which we are made. To know the identities of things, we have to go beyond the things themselves, to that which is not a thing, but is a Person. The direct approach to them won’t get us far enough. To know the Bible, one has go beyond & above it; otherwise one is seeing it from too close: this is the kind of seeing that belongs to seeing everyday objects from unusual angles. Salvation is by Christ - not by bits of paper: so the Bible, to act as the Bible, needs to be more than what is made of: it has to be made alive by something, Someone, infinitely transcending what it is made of.

This BTW means that it acts in the manner of a sacrament - for they too are dynamic unions of earthly matter & an action that infinitely transcends them & causes them to produce effects beyoind the capacities of their nature; IOW, effects that are supernatural. The Bible is therefore an example of the sacramental order in creation; so it is part of a pattern: a dynamic pattern. This is very helpful for learning about what creation is, does, & is for - as theological understanding (as well more important things) thrives on the use of analogy; comparisons between entities help a great deal towards appreciating them rightly.

Just bouncing a few ideas around.

 

[PennitentMan]

So are you an atheist or agnostic? they are not the same.

No, they are not the same, but you can be both.
Agnosticism deals with knowledge (gnosis = knowledge)
Atheist deals with belief.

I’m agnostic because no one can truly know if there is a god. This deals with knowledge and no one can claim this.
I’m Atheist because if I look at all the evidence available, I believe that there is not nearly enough to believe in a God, in fact, the evidence points to the fact that there is no god.
Atheism is the absence of belief in a deity, not necessarily believing that god does not exist.

By the way, not believing in a God is the most illogical belief that ever was invented by man. Oh, I guess we are all here by chance? Ha, thanks for the laugh man

Hey, glad I could give you a laugh!

Talk about illogical. Either the human race steadily evolved through natural selection, or we got zapped into place by Mr. Invisible. Yeah, I’m the illogical one


Bye now.

 

[Erich]

the human race steadily evolved through natural selection

and an infinite number of monkeys typing away on an infinite number of computers for an infinite amount of time will eventually type the entire works of Shakespeare. (And one monkey out of 10^813 (that’s ten followed by 813 zeros) working 24 hours a day, typing at random, may crank out a sonnet within five years.)

We know from the Second Law of Thermodynamics that the entropy (disorder) in a closed system will either increase or remain the same; it won’t decrease. Assuming the entire universe is a closed system, what, exactly, is it that would cause the human race (indeed, all life forms) to become more complex over time?

 

[PennitentMan]

and an infinite number of monkeys typing away on an infinite number of computers for an infinite amount of time will eventually type the entire works of Shakespeare. (And one monkey out of 10^813 (that’s ten followed by 813 zeros) working 24 hours a day, typing at random, may crank out a sonnet within five years.)

We know from the Second Law of Thermodynamics that the entropy (disorder) in a closed system will either increase or remain the same; it won’t decrease. Assuming the entire universe is a closed system, what, exactly, is it that would cause the human race (indeed, all life forms) to become more complex over time?

You obviously don’t understand evolution or natural selection.
The time that it becomes apparent is mostly in a survival situation. Where the ones with a certain “mutation” or gene variation is better suited to survive a given circumstance. If this variation gives the organism an edge on survival, the organisms without the variation dies. This happens over a very long period of time.
Added: It’s not random at all, like the moneky experiment implies, it’s specifically driven by gene mutation and variations and adaptations to environments. The Monkey Typewriter Hypothesis is not valid.

Your Thermodynamic statement also rest on an uncertain assumption that the universe is a closed system. That’s still an assumption. Science does not know if it’s open or closed, meaning if it’s going to reach a critical point and start collapsing, or if it would expand indefinitely.

See? Science doesn’t claim to know…we can hypothesize, but Christianity tries to put god’s stamp on all things that are unresolved and not yet discovered or proven.
It’s the easy way out. It’s not accepting that we don’t know things. It’s a way to make things easy to accept.
Only thing is that your still basing statements to prove Mr. Invisible on unproven assumptions.

Once again the thread is derailed from scriptural truth…

 

[Erich]

PennitentMan:

Your Thermodynamic statement also rest on an uncertain assumption that the universe is a closed system. That’s still an assumption.

Based on the fact that we don’t observe any interaction with any other universe elsewhere. (We might be able to observe an interaction without observing the “elsewhere” itself… that’s how black holes were first discovered for example.)

You take the existence of the universe as a given… but where did *it *originally come from? I’m reminded of the following:

A scientist says to God, “We don’t need you anymore. Science has finally figured out a way to create life out of nothing. In other words, we can now do what you did in the beginning. We can take dirt and form it into the likeness of You and breathe life into it, thus creating man.”

“Well that’s interesting,” says God." “Show Me.” So the scientist bends down to the earth and starts to mold the soil. “Oh, no, no, no,” interrupts God. “Get your own dirt.”