On my blog of late there have been conversations about biblical inerrancy. Is it a valid doctrine? Is it rational? Is it ... biblical? That last one seems a little bit funny to me. Here's the basic line of reasoning: "The Bible never says it is inerrant." The problem is that those who use this argument don't see the problem. If the primary argument that the Bible is inerrant was based on the Bible's own statement that it was inerrant, we'd have a a classic logical fallacy: Circular reasoning. "The Bible says it's inerrant. The Bible, being inerrant, cannot be wrong. Therefore, the Bible is inerrant!" Wrong. Sorry, but that's nonsense.
Does the Bible claim to be the Word of God? Absolutely! It only takes a basic search engine a brief moment to discover the phrase "Thus saith the Lord" thousands of times in the Bible. That's a claim to being God's Word. Then there's that whole "God-breathed" thing (so often minimized incorrectly as "inspired"). And if it is God's Word, can God err? Of course not. Still, to make the argument from this that the Bible is inerrant would be circular. It's helpful to the believer, but not as a valid argument for someone who does not believe.
There are other popular arguments that we like, but just don't cut the mustard, so to speak. We like the one that says "The Spirit testifies that it's the Word of God." It is a true statement, but, again, not a valid argument. Others have testified, "The Spirit told me ..." with the part that follows being downright heresy. Shall we believe them, also? And there is the popular argument that believers offer that "It is the Word of God because it speaks truth to me." This may be a true statement and is nice confirmation to a believer, but, again, it's not a valid argument for someone who does not believe for a reason similar to the previous argument. If the Quran "speaks truth to me", have I validated it as God's Word? Still another argument is "the Church says so." It is a true statement. Orthodox Christianity has always held that God does not err and, therefore, His Word is inerrant. But you can see the same problem here, can't you? "The Church" says that the Pope is infallible. Oh, wait, no, we don't all buy that. Great! Now what? See? These types of things are true and are good as confirmation for those who believe, but not valid arguments. Comforting, but not convincing.
Is there an argument, preferably a biblical one, that would demonstrate inerrancy without relying on a biblical claim to inerrancy? Yes, there is. The argument would go something like this. If you have a messenger from God who declares the Bible to be God's Word, then that would be evidence that it is God's Word. Of course, how do you determine the authenticity of such a messenger? Well, according to Scripture, that was the primary function of miracles. If you recall, Nicodemus said, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him" (John 3:2). In fact, throughout John's Gospel he liked to use the word "signs" when others wrote "miracles" because that was the purpose. If a person showed up on the scene with abilities that humans didn't have -- only God would have -- then they must be a genuine messenger from God.
So, do we have a candidate? Yes! Jesus was a verified "teacher come from God". He taught that the Scripture "cannot be broken" (John 10:35). In fact, He said, "For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law ..." (Matt 5:18). The wording He liked to repeat was "It is written" to demonstrate that what He was saying was absolutely true and authoritative. Of course, that was the Old Testament. He also promised the Spirit who would lead His disciples into all truth. So it is that Peter, speaking of Paul's work, ranks it with "the other Scriptures" (2 Peter 3:15-16).
Now we have confirmation from God's authentic messenger, Jesus, that the New Testament would be written and confirmation from another of God's authentic messengers, Peter, that Paul's writings were Scripture. Paul's writings included this: "All Scripture is God-breathed ..." So the question becomes, "Does God make mistakes?"
But, look, this isn't just my line of thinking. I just summarized this piece by John Gerstner. So you go ahead and read it. You'll find a biblical and logical proof that the Bible is inerrant. Accepting it as such is, as always, up to you. Arguing, "No such argument exists", however, is a lie.
For further reference, here's D.A. Carson briefly on the inerrancy of Scripture and how essential it is to Christianity.
66 comments:
The great thing about God (one of them, anyway) is that He chooses to work His power and will through ordinary things, that do not have to be perfect.
In the poor words of the preacher, in the bread and wine and water of the sacraments, and in the words of a book.
He even decided to reveal Himself in the form of a human.
So while His Word is perfect and infallible, the means of getting that word to us often is not...and doesn't have to be.
Is it important to answer the question "who is my brother?". At what point does one's view of interpreting the Bible put him on the outside of the "sheep pin" so to speak? And does it matter?
I, for one, think it does.
I (obviously) think it does as well. And we are commanded especially to "love one another" (as in "those who are disciples of Christ), so knowing who that is (or at least having a reasonable idea) would seem important.
Stan -
I have to point out the obvious problem: how do you know Jesus testified to this; and how do you know Peter testified about Paul? And how do you know that miracles would have been a confirmation that a person came from God? {On that point, Moses also cautioned that the content of the speaker mattered as well, and the New Testament speaks of lying signs and woders.}
Rather obviously, you know this from the Bible - but were the Bible error prone, these claims would also not be proof per se.
I agree with your contention - that the Bible is inerrant. And I tend to agree with the notion that the Holy Spirit testifies to this.
What is amazing to me is the fact that what proofs there are don't really speak to someone who doesn't believe that. (You point out, in both those cases, why.) Calvin made an argument on this very point - offering proofs only as a bolster to the confidence of those who already knew. He argued that the Bible was self-authenticating. People who believed it would know this; people who did not would not. No external argument could prove it to the one not believing it (and vice versa). It was not subject to a temporal external - that was higher than itself.
If that is the case (which I believe), it really creates a situation in which we can not have a fully common frame of reference.
Will,
It is true that there is no "proof". I have always argued that there is no "proof" for God or Scripture. "Proof" is defined as "evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth." Since in these cases there will always be some who deny it, I'm satisfied with "evidence" and "logic" without requiring "proof".
I do think the argument is both logical and biblical (unlike those who would argue that the Bible doesn't claim to be inerrant).
And if you've read much of the comments of late, you know I agree that a differing perspective on the inerrancy of Scripture certainly eliminates a common frame of reference.
Agreed.
Of course the other question - for those of us who do view the Bible as God's Word - Do we really treat it that way?
Is that the pastor in you ... apply the truth to our lives?
I have been corresponding with a Mormon man via email. He has inside him what he calls a “still small voice” that affirms the LDS doctrine that the Bible is somewhat corrupt, but the Book of Mormon and other Joseph Smith writings are perfect. He is able to quote a passage from the Bible that he says is a prophecy that the corruption was going to happen—and it has come to pass, he insists.
I like it. Completely unverifiable. No reason to think it is so. Special information that no one has ever figured out. I like it a lot. "Still, small voice" you say.
Yeah ... I'm not buying it.
Almost all Christian doctrines are based on the New Testament of the Bible. But, how do Christians know that these 27 books are the inerrant, inspired words of God, as Christians tell us?
Answer: A bunch of fallible, scientifically illiterate Churchmen in the second, third, and fourth centuries said so! That's it!
When and where did God say that a bunch of old Churchmen have the authority to determine what is and what is not his Word? When and where did God say that Saul/Paul of Tarsus was speaking on his behalf? Or the writers of the Gospels? Or James? Or Peter? Or any other writer of the New Testament? Even if the apostles themselves had voted unanimously for the 27 books of the current New Testament to be designated as the "Word of God", that still would not prove that God had authorized them to do so. We have no evidence that the Eleven achieved a state of perfection and omniscience on Pentecost. They, like every other human being, were fallible. So where is the evidence that God left a list of what should and what should not be considered his Word in a new testament?
Answer: No where!
We have no evidence from the Bible or anywhere else that God gave Christians a list of what is and what is not his Word! Christians have created an "inerrant, inspired, you-are-damned-to-Hell-if-you-don't-believe-it" Holy Book based solely on the opinions of men living almost 2,000 years ago.
Bombshell: Christians have zero evidence that proves the New Testament of the Bible to be the Word of God; the inerrant message of the Creator of the Universe to mankind. Zero!
Gary, thanks for playing. Before you come off sounding foolishly ignorant, perhaps you ought to examine the evidence for the reliability of the Bible. Simply walking in, spouting things as if you know what you're talking about, then declaring that you're right and everyone on the planet who has disagreed with you is wrong without any sort of evidence to back it up and without having examined the opposing position isn't very conducive to arriving at the truth. Here, let me help. Try a Google search for "evidence for the reliability of the bible" and see if you find something ... anything. Perhaps not all are good arguments, but the sheer volume of these things ought to give you a reason to reconsider your unconsidered position. If, at the end of such an examination, you find the evidence uncompelling, no problem. But you won't be saying "no evidence". You'll be saying, "I just don't believe it." And that's not the same thing.
No, I meant exactly what I said, there is NO evidence that the books of the New Testament are the Words of God the Creator.
Jesus referred to books of the OT as Scripture, so I will accept them. However, neither Jesus, God the Father, nor any writer of the OT says that God gave authority to the authors of the books today referred to as the "New Testament" to be the inspired words of God. The designation of these books as the Word of God was made by fallible men. Fallible men are not inerrant. Fallible men make mistakes. Therefore if fallible men chose the canon of the New Testament we have no way to know if anything said in these 27 books came from God or came from someone's wild imagination.
The burden of proof is on YOU, my Christian friend. If you assert that the New Testament is the Word of God, please give the evidence to back up that claim, and don't refer me to some Christian author's book. You should know the answer to this issue stone cold.
The burden of proof is on me. You made the assertion. Interesting.
Well, I offered you sources for evidence. You choose not to look at the evidence. I think it's clear who isn't examining the evidence. Oh, and it's not me.
But, look, it's supposed to be "a friendly discussion of issues". If this is the best you can do, perhaps you ought to give up and go home. You aren't offering anything friendly. You aren't offering any evidence. You aren't offering a discussion of the issues. If you're not going to actually do "a friendly discussion of issues", please feel free to stop commenting and I'll feel free to stop offering responses.
We have evidence that the Old Testament is the Word of God because Jesus preached from it. If Jesus rose from the dead, he is God and the fulfillment of that Old Testament. However, Jesus never said anything about a "New Testament", a new Bible should or would be created by his disciples.
By what authority do you claim that the books of the New Testament are the Word of God? I have read your sources and they offer no passage of Scripture in which God the Father, Jesus, or any Old Testament prophet lists the 27 books that today we refer to as the "New Testament" as being the inspired, inerrant Word of God.
Your apologists only quote vague passages such as "all Scripture is inspired by God..." but that passage is talking about the Old Testament. My challenge to you is: why do you believe that the New Testament is the Word of God?
You must understand that your reasoning is circular. You claim we do not have an authoritative Bible--specifically the New Testament--which you use to claim that "We have evidence that the Old Testament is the Word of God because Jesus preached from it." You can't reliably know anything that Jesus did or said if you don't have a reliable source document ... which you are currently denying we have. Nor do you have any reference that includes a listing of the 36 books of the Old Testament included in the Old Testament as proof that the Old Testament is the Word of God. Nowhere do the Old Testament writers self-profess that they are writing Scripture. You are using the New Testament to attest to your claim. You have a logical problem.
As I pointed out here, the New Testament writers reference the New Testament writers as Scripture. Qualification for inclusion in the canon was that it be directly written by or directly supervised by one of Jesus's Apostles (since "apostle" is a "messenger"). These Apostles claimed direct words from God (e.g., 1 Peter 4:11). Further, with very few exceptions, the early church classified the documents we call "the New Testament" as Scripture from the outset and rejected the documents we reject "as Scripture" from the outset. Polycarp, for instance, classified the Gospels, all of John's writings, all of Paul's writings, and Luke's Book of Acts as Scripture. The question of what should be included as Scripture didn't really occur until someone (Marcion) tried to make their own. The notion was "If Jesus promised the Holy Spirit would lead His disciples into all truth, then they wrote the truth."
We have self-identified God-breathed texts recognized from the outset as God-breathed texts which are reliable (and, in fact, abundantly documented). We have the promise of Jesus (John 16:13), the transforming ability of the New Testament, the unity of the message across all authors (written by different people at different times in different circumstances with different purposes who all agree), and the vast external evidence such as the existence of over 5,000 texts (a number any ancient historian would love to have for any other book), the endurance of the texts, and the archaeological evidence supporting New Testament accounts. On the other hand, there are no early accounts of anyone disputing the veracity of the New Testament. Since all authority belongs to God and all authority was given to the Son and the Son delegated that authority to His Apostles (John 17:18; Matt 16:19; 18:18), the authority of the New Testament is established by God.
I've given a synopsis of the logic and the evidence. I've given other sources and other ways to find other sources (like Google). I've explained the problem with your claims. I understand you don't agree. Understand that "There is no evidence" simply isn't true. You may append, "There is no evidence that I will accept", but that only makes you look narrow-minded and bigoted. "Don't bother me with facts; I know I'm right." And I'm sure you're neither of those.
"Since all authority belongs to God and all authority was given to the Son and the Son delegated that authority to His Apostles (John 17:18; Matt 16:19; 18:18), the authority of the New Testament is established by God."
So you agree with the Roman Catholics that God gave all authority to the Church. So if the Church decides that a book should be called the inerrant, infallible Word of God then the decision of the Church cannot be questioned. If that is your position then I cannot argue with that.
No, I agree with the Reformers that the sole authority in matters of faith and practice is the Scriptures. The group I mentioned as "His Apostles" were the specific, eyewitness disciples under Jesus, terminating at Paul. I do not agree that the Bible we have is the Word of God because the Church said so. I believe it is the Word of God because it is (for the reasons I offered and more), and the Church agreed.
Are you saying that the Eleven and Paul selected the canon of the New Testament before they died? Do you have evidence for that position?
No, I don't think you could even infer that from what I wrote. The eleven and Paul wrote (or supervised the writing of) the canon of the New Testament before they died. From the beginning, the Church accepted that as canon.
"The eleven and Paul wrote (or supervised the writing of) the canon of the New Testament before they died."
Upon what specific evidence do you base this belief?
History, as I already said. As the early Church claimed. As understood by Polycarp (AD 80–167) and the other eyewitnesses. As claimed by the authors of the New Testament.
When you say, "early Church", do you mean the Church of the first century or the Church of the late second century?
I was not aware that Polycarp spoke of being an eyewitness to the authorship of any of the books of the NT. Do you have a reference?
Do any of the writers of the Gospels claim to be eyewitnesses?
Polycarp was a first century Christian and a disciple of John (the one who wrote the Gospel and the 3 epistles). Peter (who oversaw the Gospel of Mark) claimed to be an eyewitness in his letters, as did John. Paul recognized Scripture as "God-breathed" and Peter recognized Paul's writing as Scripture. And so it goes.
Does Polycarp mention in any of his writings that John, son of Zebedee, wrote a gospel, and, if so, did Polycarp identify this gospel as the same gospel we today call the "Gospel According to John"?
For instance, are there any recorded statements by Polycarp in which he said something like this:
"Jesus has always existed. He is as eternal as the Father. We know this because the Apostle John writes in his gospel, 'In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God...'"?
What evidence is there that John, son of Zebedee, wrote the "Gospel according to John" and the three epistles?
How do you know that Peter oversaw the writing of the Gospel According to Mark? II Peter was not admitted into the canon until almost the fifth century because the authorship of the epistle was contested from the very beginning. In regards to I Peter, again, how do we know that Peter wrote it other than the fact that by the third century the Church had accredited Peter with the authorship of this book?
Bottom line: Do we have ANY first century evidence for the authorship of ANY of the books of the NT? Don't you think it is odd that even though early Church Fathers in the early second century quoted from the four gospels, not one of them ever specifically mentions that an apostle or his associate wrote any of these four specific books until Irenaeus and the Muratorian Fragment in the late second century? The question is not, did the gospels exist in the first century, the question is who wrote them? If John, the son of Zebedee had written a gospel, wouldn't at least ONE early Church Father mention that very important fact? But we see nothing related to authorship in the first half of the second century except for some very vague, non-specific comments by Papias: that he had heard that Matthew the apostle had written a gospel in Hebrew and that John Mark had written down the teachings of Peter. That's it. However, Papias never claims that this was first hand information for one of the authors. He very clearly states that he received this information from "associates" of the "elders": the elders being young men who had been disciples of the apostles. So if Papias received this information from friends of the disciples of the apostles of Jesus...that is at best third hand information. Can you really call third hand information "eyewitness testimony"?
As I said, your answer is "There is no evidence that I will accept." There is little doubt of the authorship of most of the New Testament. A book here or there. Some of the most skeptical "scholars" question an epistle or two of Paul's. But most of it is accepted by scholars as written by the one to whom it is attributed ... except, of course, you. Because there is no evidence that you will accept. Polycarp did not pen a note, "Dear Gary, Jesus's disciple John, the son of Zebedee, wrote the gospel and the epistles of John. Glad I could clear that up for you." Lacking that, you don't have any evidence.
The books we recognize today were in circulation in the first century and recognized as such. Since no one questioned it, no one answered the question. Iraneus in the 2nd century affirmed the four gospels as Scripture. By the early 3rd century, Christian theologians like Origen of Alexandria were using the same 27 books found in modern New Testament editions. Athanasius of Alexandria gave a list of exactly the same books in 367 AD.
You are certainly free to take that position, but it is neither honest nor reasonable. Ignore the evidence. Make your counter claims. Choose to stop your ears. The good news is you're completely free of any reliable source on the words of Jesus. The bad news is you're completely free of any reliable source for salvation. The odd thing is that you're okay with that.
The evidence (and despite your assurance that it doesn't exist, it is evidence) I've seen is sufficient for me to concur with all the early Church fathers, the historical Church, and modern biblical scholars that what we have today is a reliable, inspired Word of God. From that source, we have a reliable means to salvation. Without it, you can kiss it all goodbye because the Old Testament doesn't leave any means of salvation available today and you're left with nothing but an angry God. You are indeed free to take that position. I don't need to. And your argument from silence doesn't carry much weight.
Stan,
Please go back and look at your last comment. You don't provide any evidence that ANYONE from the time of Jesus' death circa 30 AD until circa 180 AD knew who the authors were of any non-Pauline book.
I am not contesting the historicity of Paul or that he wrote letters. I am contesting the authorship of the gospels and the non-Pauline epistles.
Your beliefs are based on assumptions and hearsay, my friend. I am not trying to insult you. I am trying to get you to think: Is there really evidence for my belief system or have I only assumed that there is evidence?
I don't question Polycarp's statement that he was a disciple of John. I question that he knew of a gospel written by John because he never says such a thing. You are assuming that Polycarp believed that John had written a gospel, but just doesn't mention it. You have no proof of this. If Polycarp had said, "John the son of Zebedee wrote the gospel that starts with "In the beginning was the Word..." I would probably still be a believer. But he didn't.
It is impossible to respond. You argued, "there is NO evidence that the books of the New Testament are the Words of God" and then argued, "We have evidence that the Old Testament is the Word of God because Jesus preached from it." The New Testament is the only evidence for what Jesus preached, so how do I respond? You argued, "Can you really call third hand information 'eyewitness testimony'?" and then claim, "I am not contesting the historicity of Paul or that he wrote letters." ... in which Paul claims to be an eyewitness.
You're looking for an answer to a question no one asked. No one in the first or second century asked, "Who wrote these?" They assumed they were written by the names attached. So they didn't write about it. Thus, your argument is an argument from silence. I told you that Polycarp (first and second century Christian) classified the Gospels, John's epistles, Paul's epistles, and Acts as Scripture. You claim no one thought of it as Scripture. Your argument is "I don't believe it." That's fine. But it isn't an argument. You're trying to get me to think, but you're not offering any evidence that the biblical writers, the early Church fathers, and the entire history of the Church got it wrong but you got it right. Nor are you offering me a reasonable alternative. Your position is "He didnt write what I wanted to see." Your alternative can only be, "So we're all without hope." And you're hoping to encourage me to follow your lead on this. This is not what I consider good reasoning, viable evidence, or wise considerations. You'll need to find another pupil; it won't be me. I lack sufficient arrogance to hold out that I got it right when 2,000 years of Christendom got it wrong ... "And, oh, by the way, we're all without hope. Have a nice day." No thanks.
In regards to the OT, for the sake of my argument, I am accepting the Christian argument that since Jesus said it was God's Word, it was. I personally don't believe this.
Regarding Paul: I do not contest that Paul wrote at least seven epistles but I do contest his claim that he was eyewitness. He himself says that his experience as a "heavenly vision" and that he only saw a talking, bright light (Acts 26). Talking bright lights are not resurrected bodies and heavenly visions are not real experiences.
You said, " No one in the first or second century asked, "Who wrote these?" They assumed they were written by the names attached. So they didn't write about it."
Stan, my friend: You are assuming that they assumed. You have no proof that they assumed that the traditional authors wrote the gospels and non-Pauline epistles. Bottom line: I can't prove they didn't and you can't prove they did. If you want to believe they did by faith, then discussion ended. But I am challenging your assertion (assumption) that you have evidence for this alleged supernatural event.
Gary, my friend, I'm assuming that they assumed because all the records show that they did. You are assuming that it's all false because you can't find a specific reference from someone 2,000 years ago with the words you require that someone said or believed it. Here's what Paul said on the subject of resurrected bodies and real experiences. "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then He appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared also to me." (1 Cor 15:3-8) Very plainly, Paul is stating the facts of the case. Very plainly, Paul is pointing to "more than five hundred" eyewitnesses to the resurrection. Very plainly there was the offer of "Go and check for yourself." History records that the grave was empty. History records that the followers of Christ gave their lives for the belief that He rose from the grave. This doesn't take faith; this is fact.
No one in the first 500 years of the Church questioned the authorship of the Gospels or Pauline letters. As I've indicated, the first Church at the end of the Apostolic Age accepted the Bible we have today as Scripture. With the exception of outliers, the Church has always accepted as authentic the 27 books we have as the New Testament and has done so by virtue of inheritance. The first of those who received these documents understood them to be authentic and authoritative and handed them down as such to the next and so on. It wasn't until the 19th century that any real question of the matter even arose, and that from skeptics. Like you.
You call me your "friend". The difference between you calling me your friend and I calling you mine is that you would hope to strip me of any beliefs, any comfort, any sanity in this world, and I would hope to endow you with faith, comfort, peace, and hope. You decide which is friendship. I cannot prove Christianity. This much is true. "Proof" is defined as "The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true." Humans have the amazing capacity to look at a host of irrefutable evidence and say, "Nope! I don't believe it!" That is, proof is subjective. I see it quite clearly; you ignore what's there. But rest assured that encouraging me to surrender my faith is no friendly act. I've examined it for too long, made the connections too tightly, answered the questions too thoroughly, and, honestly, been too greatly comforted in the end by its solidity, correlation to reality, and its ramifications to be willing to simply assume with you, "They didn't write what I wanted them to write, so it's all bunk" and proceed forth without hope. Denying evidence doesn't mean "no evidence". It means that you've denied it. The endurance of the texts, both physically and effectually, the continuity and solidity of their message, the historic acceptance of them, and 2,000 years of large numbers who agree are all evidence ... and that's just a summary. You'll have to do better than "I can't prove they didn't" and an offer for oblivion to get me to reconsider.
"I'm assuming that they assumed because all the records show that they did."
If we had records of a Christian pastor in say 85 AD stating, "John Mark states in his gospel, "He that believes and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned" then I would accept that as very strong evidence that John Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark. But we do not have any statements like that until Ireneaus in 180 AD.
Yes, early second century Christians quoted from the four Gospels but they did not attribute authorship to them. If an apostle or associate of an apostle had written them, why wouldn't these Christian say so. They readily gave credit to Paul as the author of his epistles. If John or Matthew had written a Gospel, why didn't ANYONE mention that fact until Ireneaus in 180 AD who stated that there had to be four gospels because the earth has four corners.
No, I am not assuming that the apostles did not write the Gospels. What I am saying is this: there is no way to know who wrote the Gospels because the authors do not identify themselves and no one during the first century identifies the authorship of these four books.
By "all the records show they did", I mean that from the outset they accepted these books and letters as Scripture. Nor, with the echoes of the authors/Apostles still ringing in their ears, would they need to make a call to the authority of John Mark's Gospel (for instance) because it was assumed.
Your evidence against all of this is that here, some 2,100 years after the fact, you can't find a reference among Polycarp's personal letters that says, "John, the son of Zebedee, whom I served with, was the author of the Gospel of John." Ergo, no such thing can be known. Seems really slim to me. Seems as if your standard for reliable evidence from 2100 years ago is pretty high. Ridiculously high. Seems to me, in fact, that the goal is not to determine the authenticity of what all the previous believers from the first century on held, but how it is not true. Kind of like "I will not believe until I place my fingers in His hands and side."
Dear Stan,
I do not question that Christians in the early second century believed that the four books we today call "The Gospels" were Scripture. What I question is whether or not they believed they were written by eyewitnesses to the event, specifically, whether they were written by the authors Ireneaus attributed to them in the late second century.
Are you saying that just because early Christians believed a book to be Scripture, that meant that God considered it Scripture? If so, Hebrews and Revelation would be out, and the Shepherd of Hermas and the Gospel of Barnabas would be in. There was more agreement among early Christians for the canonicity of the last two books than of the former. So I find it hard to believe that you would ascribe canonicity to a book just because Christians in the early second century believed it to be Scripture. Remember, we have zero references regarding this issue from the first century, when the apostles would still be alive.
Interesting cause and effect you have going there. "Are you saying that just because early Christians believed a book to be Scripture, that meant that God considered it Scripture?" No, God didn't consider it Scripture because His followers did.
I would guess that you and I have a starkly different version of exactly how the Bible came to be. Yours is the "They fought over it for centuries and finally the ruling powers established what we have today" version. Mine is not that one. From my examinations, the documents for the New Testament were agreed upon and established from the outset. Many liked the Shepherd of Hermas and the Didache, but they generally agreed that, while these were good reads, they didn't rise to the level of Scripture. The standard rule was "Was it written by or overseen by one of Jesus's Apostles?" Anything post 100 AD, then, was rejected. (I have seen the arguments and evidence and believe at this point that the New Testament documents were completed prior to 70 AD.) Since the early Church had this basic rule, the early Church clearly believed that these books were written by eyewitnesses and were Scripture. Actual formalization of the canon only became an issue when peripheral voices started disagreeing on what was or was not. So they established what was already agreed upon with very little dispute. It wasn't a matter of a vote or power. It wasn't a matter of opinion.
I suppose, though, that this factor alone will cause you problems. Your version necessarily requires no interaction with God. That is, it is not possible that God oversaw the establishment of Scripture both from the outset as well as into the later days when the question of canon was addressed. It's necessarily a matter of human origin. As a theist myself, I don't have that limitation.
Ok. But I hope you see that you are placing your faith in the correct selection of Scripture on the decisions of fallible men, no matter how good of men they might have been, they were still men who could make mistakes. Maybe the only real Word of God is the Epistle of Jude?? How would you know. You are giving the Eleven divine powers.
Even if it is true that all 27 books of the current NT was approved by the Eleven original disciples themselves, that does not prove that they did not make a mistake. Jesus gave the disciples the power to drink poison, to pick up poisonous snakes and not be harmed, and to retain sins, if the Gospels are correct, but he did not grant omniscience to them. If he had, Peter would not have sided with the Judaizers in his spat with Paul.
You have no proof that God gave the apostles or any other early Christian the power to discern what was and what was not Holy Scripture, unless you are a papist and believe that God gave ALL power to the Church, specifically to Peter and his successors.
I'm placing my faith in God and His ability to oversee His own Word. I'm placing my faith in Christ who promised that the Holy Spirit would lead His disciples into all truth. I'm placing my faith in a Sovereign deity who is able to breathe His words into human authors without error, maintain that word through time, and provide for His own a real, usable, reliable source document for matters of faith and practice. The eleven? No, I'm not placing my faith in them. No one said they were infallible. Nor am I placing it in the Church. But if God is Sovereign and Omnipotent and Christ carried through on His promises, then I should be able to trace a solid line from Jesus to today ... and the Bible is just such a line. It has been confirmed, agreed upon, upheld, examined, and proved for 2000 years. As I agreed, I don't have proof. I don't have evidence sufficient to produce belief in its truth. That doesn't make it true. Your refusal to agree with the claims does not mean that there is no evidence, no rationale, no truth to it. It simply means you don't agree. And I think you would have to agree that that kind of argument isn't particularly convincing.
Thank you for your honest answer, Stan. I don't think that it is wrong to believe in things by faith. We all exercise faith every day, whether crossing bridges we have never examined or entering a building whose building plans we have not inspected.
But when we use faith to demonize, persecute, and threaten others, that is when faith becomes a problem, and faith has been used like that for millennia, by persons of many different belief systems, not just Christians.
I believe that faith should always be secondary to the primary method of determining truth in our modern world: the scientific method. I do not believe that faith, based on little or no evidence, should ever take precedent over reason, logic, and science. For instance, if I can demonstrate that there is overwhelming evidence that there was no world-wide flood, then persisting to push that belief, simply by faith, is wrong and detrimental.
So if someone wants to believe by faith that Jesus rose from the dead; if that brings them comfort and peace; I have no problem with that. It is when someone who believes in a supernatural claim such as the resurrection of Jesus or the visions of Mohammad uses their belief to tell others, "If you don't believe like me you are evil and my God is going to punish you (and maybe I will do the will of God and punish you myself) that we have so much hate and violence in the world.
Gary, thanks for the kindness of allowing me my faith. According to my faith (the words of the Bible), we are told that we won't be believed or accepted, that in general people are hostile to God, that the gospel is a "stumblingblock", a point of contention, a truth that will be demeaned and discarded by more than accept it. So it comes as no surprise to me when others don't.
So if someone (say, someone like you) chooses not to believe that Jesus (whom almost all historians concur existed) lived and was killed (which almost all historians believe) and rose again (which the Bible, historical evidence, the behavior of His followers, and more affirm) and that God provided a reliable account for future generations (which the Church has always affirmed and countless people have attested to its truth and affects), I can't say I'm surprised. But when you say it's "based on little or no evidence" or suggest it's against "reason, logic, and science", I will continue to point out that your claim simply isn't true. And I have to point out that you offer no evidence, reason, logic, or science to demonstrate that it's true. Science even suggests that there was a Great Flood. There are fossilized remains of marine life on every major mountain range. There is sedimentary rock everywhere. And there is a universal presence of flood stories in far-cast, widely separated cultures throughout the world. Proof? No, as I have agreed. Evidence? Yes.
I do not believe, nor does my Bible teach, that "If you don't believe like me you are evil and my God is going to punish you." My Bible teaches we're all evil and our only hope is Christ. That doesn't give any room for hate and violence in Christianity. (We are, in fact, commanded two basic commands: 1) love God and 2) love your neighbor. No room for hate there.) So since I have your permission, and since I have no evidence or reason not to believe the evidence or reasons I have to believe that the Bible is exactly the Word of God, I guess I'll go on believing that. Not against reason or evidence. Because of.
Dear Friend,
As an agnostic, humanist, and naturalist, I am sure that you view me as the enemy. But I am actually a friend; a friend trying to rescue you; a friend trying to rescue you from a false belief system; a friend trying to rescue you from a cult.
I’m sure that it shocks you and may even insult you for me to state that you are involved in a cult, but I ask you to hear me out. What are the hallmarks of a cult:
1. They lure you in with promises of love, security, and happiness.
2. However, if you even think about leaving, they threaten you with horrific consequences.
Does your belief system fit that pattern? If you chose to walk away from it, would you be punished? We both know that the answer is “yes”. Someone, including a God, who truly loves you, does not punish you for not loving him.
What would you do if I were your close friend or family member and I joined a cult? I bet that you would try to expose me to information that would open my eyes to the delusions of my cult; delusions that my cult has convinced me to believe as absolute, unquestioned truth. You would ask me to read information that counters the supernatural claims of my cult. You would not let me live my entire life in this false, delusional belief system without making an effort to rescue me.
That is what I am attempting to do for you, friend. I am attempting to rescue you from a false belief system; a false belief system based on the powers of the supernatural; on the powers of MAGIC. You have been convinced that the world is controlled by magic.
Your magical belief system tells you that witches exist and have the power to call up the dead (I Samuel chapter 28). Your magical belief system teaches you that wizards can turn walking sticks into snakes (Exodus chapter 7). Your magical belief system teaches you that goblins (demons) can enter and possess large herds of pigs (Mark chapter 5) driving them to commit mass suicide. Your magical belief system tells you that blindness can be cured by rubbing mud and spit into someone’s eye sockets (John chapter 9).
This is not a rational, informed, belief system, friends. This is an ancient, scientifically ignorant, superstition. It is magic.
I was once was a member of your cult. I know how you think. I know how your magical beliefs seem so real. But it is a delusion my friends. It isn’t real. If it were real we would still witness these fantastic, magical events occurring today…but we don’t, do we? Think about that: so many magical events allegedly occurred several thousand years ago, but you have never seen one single magical event occur in your lifetime, have you? And neither has any other rational, educated human being in the last 2,000 years.
It is odd how magic never happens when there are television cameras, video recorders, cell phone cameras, tape recorders, or scientific observers to verify the claim. Think about that, friend.
Your “movement” has had 2,000 years to come up with every imaginable excuse and harmonization to explain why these alleged, ancient, supernatural events really did occur. But Hindus, Muslims, and Mormons can do the exact same thing for their supernatural claims. You may think that their excuses and harmonizations are nonsensical and easily falsifiable, but they think the same about yours! Bottom line, friends: Magic is not real.
I strongly encourage you to do this:
1. Allow for the possibility that your belief system is wrong.
2. Read information that challenges your belief system.
---I recommend the following websites: Bart Ehrman’s blog, Debunking Christianity, and The Secular Web.
I am available for questions and support anytime.
Gary
No, Gary, not the enemy. Doesn't fit in my belief system. Blinded, yes. Enemy, no.
Here, Gary, see if you can help me out. For the sake of discussion, let's just say that this is an amazing 2000 (plus, since it is actually an extension of Judaism) year cult with all the positive benefits (think hospitals, charitable organizations, feeding the hungry, that sort of stuff) and beliefs that it has carried. We're assuming it's false even though no one has ever been able to prove that. We're working off the premise that it's all bunk even though you've offered no evidence or reasons to do so. Okay. We'll go from there. So it's all a lie. No God. No Christ. No religion. No afterlife. Got it. All of it. What are you offering in its place? You're offering, obviously, to free me from a "delusional belief system". Okay. Fine. For what? You rescue me from this "cult" and free me to ... what? What are you offering in its place that I would find a good thing?
And I'd like to point out that I suspect you think you know me. I'm the typical "raised in this belief system and so brainwashed that he can't think his way out of a paper bag" type. I've never looked at the opposition, examined the objections, looked at the evidence that disagrees with my conclusions. If that's something of your view of me, I will let you in on a secret. I've been where you are. I've examined the evidence, followed the logic, thought down the various paths. I've been in the habit of looking at sources that disagree with my view to see where I might be wrong. (Indeed, it is part of my fundamental nature to figure I'm likely wrong. I used to joke, "I'm the reason for abortion; I just haven't told the Pope.") You suggested I reexamine my beliefs in light of all the challenges. I've done that. I still do. Thanks.
But, since you're my friend, eager to get me to the best place, offering "support anytime", I'll be interested to find out how tossing out meaning, purpose, a moral basis, a reasonable explanation of origins, answers to tough questions in life and all in favor of your ... lack of the same. How will this make my life better, friend?
Hi Stan,
I can't promise that your life will be better, but the world will be so much better if we could rid ourselves of these baseless supernatural superstitions that have been the cause of so much hatred, discrimination, and war.
I am sure that you do not consider that your brand of Christianity has participated in this behavior, but I will bet that even in 2015, your brand of Christianity is discriminating against people who have done no harm to anyone else but due to the fact they have violated your Faith's moral code, you favor punishing them.
If you were a liberal Christian who believes that Jesus was a great man; that he taught many wonderful, humanistic principles; and that we should try to emulate his life, but that belief in him as God will NOT determine whether or not you suffer in a divine torture pit, I wouldn't be leaving a message on your blog.
What do I have to offer to replace your current belief system? Answer: the naked truth. That's it. It may not bring you comfort and security but it is reality.
I personally take great comfort n the fact that their is no vindictive task master tossing kind, generous, loving old Hindu ladies into a Lake of Fire. I take great comfort in Humanism. That it is each person's best interest to look out for the well being of our neighbor.
Life on earth without fundamentalist, exclusivist religion would be so much more peaceful and pleasant.
"It may not bring you comfort and security." That's what I expected. You come in as my friend and tell me, "If you breathe air, it will kill you" and assure me it's because you're trying to do me a favor, act as my friend, make my life better. As if that "naked truth" is good simply because it exists. And then you offer a broad, sweeping claim that life without Christianity would be much more peaceful and pleasant? You would argue that society would have been better of without the forces that brought you modern science, medicine, hospitals, charities, and the like. You would, of course, have to argue this in a vacuum, since your notion of "peaceful" and "pleasant" would be suspect in the absence of Judeo-Christian morality.
Well, I suppose we're done. I've repeatedly told you that your claims of "no evidence", "baseless", and all are merely your claims and not actual reality. You haven't offered anything to change that fact except repetition of the claims. Thanks for playing. I would hope that casual readers would see that I offered reasons and evidence and you offered denials and no evidence. And it's sad that you would have such a narrow, stereotyped version to work with as "hatred, discrimination, and war" and "your brand of Christianity is discriminating against people who have done no harm to anyone else but due to the fact they have violated your Faith's moral code, you favor punishing them." You've drunk the kool-aid. Sorry to hear that.
If someone you care about was involved in a cult, even though they were happy and content, would you still try to show them their superstitious beliefs were false? I bet you would.
It is a difficult decision to sacrifice your own comfort and security for the well being of others. But, the world would be a much better place if superstitions, including religious superstitions, in all cultures, were dispelled.
Contact me if you want to talk more. Take care.
Not in response to Gary, but for all the possible readers out there, please note. I gave evidence and reasons why I am convinced the Bible is God's Word and Christianity is true. I asked for evidence and reason to believe otherwise. In response I was answered repeatedly, "Your beliefs are false." No evidence. No reasons. And the oft-repeated, never supported claim, "The world would be a much better place if your religion was removed." Please, dear reader, compare for yourselves. Who gave evidence and reasons, and who simply spoke propositions without either? Your call.
I have a question for you, Stan. In the Bible, the powers of witches, wizards, and mediums is confirmed as true. Saul sought out a medium because he obviously believed that mediums could contact the dead. According to the Bible, the witch of Indora had the power to call up the dead---she called up dead Samuel as Saul requested.
Do you believe that if I wanted to speak to someone who is dead today that I could find a medium or witch who would have this power?
That's taking it pretty fast and loose, Gary. What's your point? "It doesn't fit with my definitions of reality"?
The Bible condemns witchcraft. Indeed, in the account you reference this "medium of Endor" was surprised when an actual spirit showed up. She didn't believe in it. So, what's your question? Can you find a medium who would call up dead people for you? I don't believe so. I do believe that there is a hereafter for people who die. I do believe that in this particular case God sent Samuel back for a brief (and damning) conversation with Saul. But I don't believe humans have those powers. Not then. (She didn't think she did.) Not now.
Having said that, I'm quite certain that "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy." (Where would you like to start? With the lack of basis for a moral system, or with the complete inability for your worldview to account for origins? Just to name a couple.)
3 Now Samuel had died, and all Israel had mourned for him and buried him in Ramah, his own city. Saul had expelled the mediums and the wizards from the land. 4 The Philistines assembled, and came and encamped at Shunem. Saul gathered all Israel, and they encamped at Gilboa. 5 When Saul saw the army of the Philistines, he was afraid, and his heart trembled greatly. 6 When Saul inquired of the Lord, the Lord did not answer him, not by dreams, or by Urim, or by prophets. 7 Then Saul said to his servants, “Seek out for me a woman who is a medium, so that I may go to her and inquire of her.” His servants said to him, “There is a medium at Endor.”
8 So Saul disguised himself and put on other clothes and went there, he and two men with him. They came to the woman by night. And he said, “Consult a spirit for me, and bring up for me the one whom I name to you.” 9 The woman said to him, “Surely you know what Saul has done, how he has cut off the mediums and the wizards from the land. Why then are you laying a snare for my life to bring about my death?” 10 But Saul swore to her by the Lord, “As the Lord lives, no punishment shall come upon you for this thing.” 11 Then the woman said, “Whom shall I bring up for you?” He answered, “Bring up Samuel for me.” 12 When the woman saw Samuel, she cried out with a loud voice; and the woman said to Saul, “Why have you deceived me? You are Saul!” 13 The king said to her, “Have no fear; what do you see?” The woman said to Saul, “I see a divine being[a] coming up out of the ground.” 14 He said to her, “What is his appearance?” She said, “An old man is coming up; he is wrapped in a robe.” So Saul knew that it was Samuel, and he bowed with his face to the ground, and did obeisance.
15 Then Samuel said to Saul, “Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?”
Saul answered, “I am in great distress, for the Philistines are warring against me, and God has turned away from me and answers me no more, either by prophets or by dreams; so I have summoned you to tell me what I should do.” 16 Samuel said, “Why then do you ask me, since the Lord has turned from you and become your enemy? 17 The Lord has done to you just as he spoke by me; for the Lord has torn the kingdom out of your hand, and given it to your neighbor, David. 18 Because you did not obey the voice of the Lord, and did not carry out his fierce wrath against Amalek, therefore the Lord has done this thing to you today. 19 Moreover the Lord will give Israel along with you into the hands of the Philistines; and tomorrow you and your sons shall be with me; the Lord will also give the army of Israel into the hands of the Philistines.”
I believe that this passage is proof that the Bible teaches that witches and wizards have real powers (black magic). Some conservative Christians will try to say that the medium was surprised to see Samuel "coming up" for the reason that she had never previously had success in bringing up the dead. I believe that a close reading of the entire passage says otherwise. If the medium was surprised that she was successful, you would think that her response would be more shock that she was actually seeing a real ghost! But that isn't what she seems concerned about. She is concerned that the person who is asking for her assistance is someone who has the power to execute her...the king!
Isn't it much more likely, reading the full passage, that the medium did not expect someone as important as Samuel to come up for just anyone. When he did, she realized he would only come up for someone very important...like the king...King Saul. So I think the full passage supports the idea that the medium was surprised, not by her success in calling up the dead, but by realizing who was asking for the dead prophet to be called up. Could conservative Christians be right? Yes, but I don't think that a nonbiased third party would read this passage and easily come to their conclusion.
What about Saul's reaction? Saul seems fully confidant that the medium can call up the dead. He doesn't ask her if she can, he just asks her to do it. When she is successful, Saul is not surprised. Conservative Christians would probably say that all people who go to mediums believe that the medium will be successful, so Saul's reaction is not indicative of anything. I would agree, up to the point that the author of this Bible passage tells us that Saul has a conversation with the dead prophet. Christians will most likely counter that this "calling up of the dead" was a one time act of God, the medium had nothing to do with it.
Let's then look at Samuel's reaction in this passage.
Notice that Samuel's first words are, “Why have YOU disturbed me by bringing me up?” If this was an act of God, why would Samuel credit Saul with bringing him up from the grave? If God had brought Samuel up out of the grave, why doesn't Samuel point this out to Saul by saying something like, "You sought out the assistance of a witch, but it is God who has brought me up to you."
But Samuel doesn't say that, does he? Samuel seems irritated by having his eternal rest disturbed but he doesn't seem to find it at all odd that a witch/medium had the capacity, the power, to call him up from the dead. And this passage is not the only passage in the Bible where the "wicked" possess magical powers. The priests of Pharaoh were able to turn walking sticks into snakes and even in the New Testament times, nonbelievers were able to cast out demons.
I suppose, Gary, that you've heard of the "strawman" argument, right? That's where you say, "You believe X" when X is not what I believe and then you proceed to explain why I'm wrong. This is just such an argument. Your position is, "I believe that this passage is proof that the Bible teaches that witches and wizards have real powers (black magic)." Fine. I don't know a single Christian who agrees. I've never heard a single Christian teacher or expositor that agreed. You're arguing against beliefs no Christian holds. And isn't it amusing that you, who deny the truthfulness of the Bible, feel it's your responsibility to school me in what the Bible means when no other Christian agrees? Strange.
Suffice it to say I disagree with your explanation (as does everyone else I know who believes the Bible).
A large number of Bible believers hold that Samuel didn't show, that it was, in fact, a demon. Jewish scholars believe it was an angel. For the rest, it was Samuel. But it was not by some witch's power. All Christians I know and have heard or read argue that "magic" (as opposed to "illusion") is either God's power or Satan's power and not "black magic". No person has "real powers".
Of course, as a humanist, you would deny the existence of any supernatural entities or powers, so it's all the same to you. But you need to understand. First, if the supernatural exists, such entities would necessarily and naturally have powers outside nature. As C.S. Lewis pointed out, it is only reasonable that if there is a God, then miracles would occur. Second, you are not equipped to test the supernatural. To argue that science cannot find any supernatural entities is like arguing that sound doesn't exist because my voltmeter hasn't found it. Of course it hasn't. A voltmeter isn't designed to test for sound. You need equipment designed to interact with sound. So, by definition the natural world is not supernatural.
I do not deny the existence of the supernatural. It may exist, but until I can examine it with the scientific method, I reject all faith based, supernatural claims.
I think that even conservative Christians, if they are honest, do not believe in the supernatural simply by faith. If pushed, conservative Christians will appeal to the "evidence" that proves the resurrection, as an historical event. I know very few Christians who base their faith on blind faith alone.
Do you believe that the wizards of Pharaoh turned their staffs into snakes or did God do this for them?
You accuse me of the logical fallacy of creating a straw man, yet you, my friend, are appealing to the logical fallacy that the majority must be right.
Just because the majority or even all Christians today believe that the Medium of Indor did not have the power to call up the dead, does not mean that their view is correct. And the same for the majority of Jews today saying that it was only an angel.
If you read the entire passage, there is: 1. zero insinuation that the ghost is anyone else but Samuel. 2. Samuel is irritated by not surprised to be brought up out of the grave during a witch's séance. 3. Samuel says nothing about his appearance being due to an act of God.
I agree that the witch was surprised and terrified to see Sameul, but to say that her surprise and fear were due to never having had true success in bringing up a ghost before is pure conjecture.
The plain, simple understanding of this entire passage is that Saul went to a witch, fully expecting that she could call up Samuel, which she did.
This story, along with the story of pharaoh's sorcerers turning sticks into snakes and nonbelievers casing out demons in the NT era, are proof that the Bible teaches that the unsaved can use black magic to perform supernatural acts, including calling up the souls of the dead.
This OT passage is in direct contradiction to the Christian doctrine of Heaven and Hell, and in my opinion, proves that the Bible and Christianity are human inventions based on ancient superstitions.
Well, then, good. I don't have proof of the truth of Scripture because proof is defined as the evidence that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true. You, on the other hand, have just such proof of the falsehood of the Bible and Christianity. All is well. Your job is done. Be well. And as soon as you put that little piece of proof out for the world to hear, Christianity will be done. Congratulations.
Oh, by the way, you seem to operate from a definition of faith that is foreign to the Bible. The biblical definition is "to be convinced by evidence or argument". (See, for instance, Thayers or Strongs definition of πείθω--peithō--the Greek word for "faith".) "Faith" and "evidence" are linked in the biblical concept, not opposed.
One other thing. A reference to those who disagree with your interpretation is not a call to a majority. It's a reference to a those who disagree. I didn't call on numbers. The argumentum ad populum fallacy requires that I use the quantity of people who claim something to be proof that the something is true. I simply pointed out that I'm not alone in disagreeing with your interpretation. It would likely be helpful for you in your campaign to destroy Christianity and remove religion (I wonder; do you go to Islamic or Hindu or other religious sites to talk them out of their faith, too? Probably not.) to learn logic and logical fallacies. Just sayin'.
If you are interested:
I spoke to my 75 year old, former fundamentalist Baptist preacher, father, and he said that in his day, fundamentalist Baptists at least believed that the witch of Endor did have the power to call up the dead.
I nor my father have been around evangelicals since the early 80's. If no one believes this position anymore, it shows me just another example of conservative Christianity changing its position as to not look like complete idiots.
It would appear that you misunderstood me. You asked, "Do you believe that if I wanted to speak to someone who is dead today that I could find a medium or witch who would have this power?" The implication is that someone (human) "would have this power", that someone has this power at their command. What I said was that supernatural beings have supernatural powers. Natural beings (humans, for instance) have natural powers. Thus, a human would not possess this power. I didn't say no such power existed (I said, in fact, the opposite) and I didn't say that the witch of Endor didn't call up a dead person. If the position that a supernatural being would have supernatural powers is completely idiotic, I don't know what to say. Like saying that the claim that electric lightbulbs use electricity is idiotic.
All Bible-believing Christians I know believe that God has supernatural powers and that Satan (another supernatural being) has supernatural powers. "Magic" done in Scripture would be performed through these sources, perhaps with the use of a human. But not as if the human possesses the power.
Is it your position, then, that if a supernatural being exists (which you don't deny), such a being cannot possess supernatural powers? I would think that an agnostic ("doesn't know") wouldn't make such a rash claim.
I apologize for misunderstanding your position, Stan. I thought you were saying that conservative Christians/evangelicals today do not believe that there is such a thing as black magic and that the Witch of Endor was not calling up the dead by the powers of black magic (Satan).
So you do agree that the Witch of Endor, by the power of Satan, could bring up the dead, and that a witch today could do the same by the power of Satan?
Satan does not have the power of death. Jesus said, "All authority is given unto Me." Nor do I think that if it was actually Samuel that showed up that he showed up by the power of this woman or of Satan. Samuel would not have been in Satan's hands. So, no, I don't believe that someone has the power to call up a dead person.
What in the passage convinces you that it was not Samuel? What in the passage itself convinces you that the witch (using Satan's black magic) was not the cause of Samuel being "called up"?
I'm curious. The topic of the post was the inerrancy of Scripture. Your topic has been that all of Scripture is nonsense. So why is it that you have decided to discuss the witch of Endor? What does this have to do with whether or not God correctly inspired His Word? It seems as if you've gone far afield of the topic and I'm not sure what you hope to gain with it.
I don't believe I've claimed it was or wasn't Samuel. I've already explained why the witch was not the cause.
Did I say that all of the Bible is nonsense? If I did, shame on me.
If viewed as a piece of ancient literature, the Bible is a masterpiece. Every human being should read it. But just as it would be nonsensical to treat Homer's Iliad as the Word of God the Creator, so it is with the Bible.
I believe that the Witch of Endor is a fascinating tale, but it also proves that the Bible contains black magic, and black magic is fiction. It isn't real. The author of the Book of Samuel thought it was real.
Only a modern reader would read this passage and believe that the witch was faking her reading or that a demon appeared and not the prophet Samuel.
Alright, first, you understand that if we were in court, the defense would object, "Assumes facts not in evidence." You've determined without argument, evidence, or logic that magic doesn't exist and then use this unsupported claim to argue for your position. Poor approach.
Second, you are using the term "black magic" which I've never used nor suggested nor would even imply about the event. That would qualify as a "strawman".
Third, the Bible claims "All Scripture is God-breathed." You claim it is not the Word of God. Ergo, you claim it is not what it claims, making it barely a passable work of fiction, let alone "a masterpiece". But when I said your position that all of Scripture is nonsense, I meant that you hold the position that its truth claims are nonsensical. In that sense, you believe the Bible is nonsense. Oh, here are your words: "baseless supernatural superstitions", "nonsensical and easily falsifiable", " false, delusional belief system". Maybe not "nonsense". Far worse.
How do you know that all the books of the OT are the Words of God? How do you know that the 27 books of the NT are the Words of God?
Are we going to do this again? This was where you started, and you didn't accept any answers I gave you then. Interestingly, you offered, "Jesus referred to books of the OT as Scripture, so I will accept them", but clearly you're now recanting that.
It might be beneficial to you if you begin with, "I will accept no argument, logic, reasoning, or evidence that the Bible is the Word of God, especially since I cannot scientifically test for the existence of God" and go from there rather than waste all this time in a circular discussion where you're going to contradict yourself and offer up the dialog like it's an actual exchange of thoughts rather than the simple head-on assault you intend.
No hard feelings here. I think we're done.
Sorry, Stan. That's what happens when you are involved in four different conversations, with four different conservative Christian bloggers, on four different blogs. I lost track of our previous conversation. I apologize.
If I understand you correctly, you believe that God inspired true Christians to recognize his true Word very early after the Apostles wrote them. Correct?
If so, I encourage you to do the following: Read the skeptics on this issue. As in all debates, listen to both sides before making up your mind who is right. If you believe that the 27 books of the NT are God's Word simply because God said he would preserve his Word, isn't it quite possible that he HAS preserved his Word, and that Word is the Epistle of Jude...and that's it.
Your position really relies more on faith than on evidence. I wish Christians would just admit that.
I suppose that would be a problem, keeping up with all that. Just like you forgot that I already said that I've spent time examining the objections, the skeptics, both sides. You also forgot that I explained that the biblical concept of faith is to be convinced by evidence or argument, so "Your position really relies more on faith than on evidence" doesn't quite work. Nor does it help to ignore the evidence and then tell me I'm not relying on the evidence.
Look, Gary, you're a busy guy, arguing with Christians all day and all that. (I wonder why you only argue with Christians and no other of the offensive faiths out there.) I think I've worn out your arguments and memory cells and I'm sure you're not on the verge of converting me from Christian to hopeless, so why not go and joust with your other bloggers? I think we're done.
So the Bible says that Jesus proved that the Bible says what God says.
So since there are no more miracles, the Bible has no more proof of its correctness, and hasn't been shown to a less superstitious environment in hundreds of years, and you expect others to believe your candidate of authority whose only corroboration to his authority, are an incident of a movement recorded by Josephus, and some accusations of witchcraft from the Talmud both or which are errant and fallible sources?
Lots of assumptions there. "No more miracles." Maybe, but I've seen them. "No proof of correctness." Not for you, perhaps, although "proof" is purely subjective and I have a lot of evidence for the reliability of Scripture. "Less superstitious" is a real stretch. Maybe less superstitious in the magical, but our world has gone full bore superstitious in the physical ... as if that's all there is. (Think "love".) And why are Josephus and the Talmud the only corroboration? I know of four Gospels and lots of documented eyewitnesses. So it's interesting to me that your "lack of proof" is sufficient evidence for you to prove ... anything. Do I expect you to believe it? No. Why should I?
Post a Comment