dob@ihuxj.UUCP (Daniel M. O'Brien) (11/30/83)
Before I am flamed out of existence in this world and into the next, allow me to plead guilty to the charge of circular reasoning in regards to my using Scripture to prove that Paul's writings are inspired and infallible. I especially appreciate Byron Howes insight into some of the Scripture I quoted. We still disagree, however, on the infallibility of Paul in his letters. (I know that Paul did not intend to write Scripture. He was writing letters of encourage, rebuke, etc. to others. But by the nature of his Apostleship, though, Paul was used by God to get out His message.) But let's leave this for now and *net* on it later. Rather, let use deal with the question of circular reasoning. Josh McDowell, in "Answers to Tough Questions...", has an argument for Christians to use to claim that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, and that is not circular. I quote (pages 147-148): --- Instead of assuming the Bible is the Word of God, we can begin by demonstrating that the Scriptures are basically reliable and trustworthy historical documents. This is confirmed by applying the ordinary test of historical critism to the Scriptures. Once it is established that the Bible is a valid historical record, the next point is realizing that Jesus Christ claims to be the unique Son of God and that He bases this claim on His forthcoming resurrection from the dead. Next, we examine the evidence for the resurrection contained in this historic document and find that the arguments overwhelmingly support the contention that Christ has risen from the dead. If this is true, then He is the unique Son of God as He claimed to be. If He is indeed God, then He speaks with authority on all matters. Since Jesus considered the Old Testament to be the Word of God (Matthew 15:1-4; 5:17,18) and promised His disciples, who either wrote or had control over the writings of the New Testament books, that the Holy Spirit would bring all things back to their remembrance (John 14:26), we can insist, with sound and accurate logic, that the Bible is God's word. This is not circular reasoning. It is establishing certain facts and basing conclusions on the sound logical outcome of these facts. The case for Christianity can be established by ordinary means of historical investigation. ---- end quote. ---- Let's keep our discussion on the net. Several have sent me mail, suggesting that I should have stayed off the net with my initial and subsequent messages and only sent MAIL to the persons involved. The tone was one of *fear* of the net. I thought that the net allowed an open forum for discussion, rebuttal, information, etc. Or is the net for a select few with only spectators on the sidelines. Please let me know which it is, and if the net is not open, then I will get off not bother with it. -- Daniel M. O'Brien AT&T Bell Laboratories IH 1C-202 Naperville, IL 60566 ....!ihuxj!dob
bch@unc.UUCP (11/30/83)
I am glad you brought up the subject of Josh McDowell. His works are rather remarkable, but do not deal with the central issue which was brought up in my last submission. That we can apply standard techniques to parts of the New Testament does not mean that we can successfully apply them to all of it. The Bible was not written as a single document at a single time, and the individuals which brought it into codified Canon between the 2nd and 4th centuries A.D. had definite points of view to advance. If we look at the political situation of the church, there was a main body of Apostolic Bishops, claiming legitimacy from the original Apostles plus Paul. Outside this body, there were a large number of smaller sects, some claiming different sources of legitimacy (one claimed Mary Magdelene as having heard the truth from Jesus, for example) and claiming a whole series of different documents in their tradition. The Apostolics succeeded in having the Gnostics, Valentinians, etc. branded as heretics, and their traditional writings and scriptures excised from church canon *before* the New Testament as we know it was completely codified. We know, as well, that even portions of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) have come down to us in a form altered from the original. Many of the alterations are small "errors" by scribes, but at least one of the important large alterations is the section in Mark (the oldest of the synoptic Gospels and one of the source works for both Matthew and Luke) which describes the resurrection. This was presumably added at a later date. The alterations described took place, again, *before* the text was adopted into canon. McDowell places great stock in the number of "original" document fragments still extant in his proof of the veracity of the New Testa- ment. Let me state (again, for long-time readers of net.religion) that the number of copies of a given document does not, by itself, give proof to its veracity. We need to look at how, and why, the documents in question were collected together, what was *not* included in the collection and make inference from there. As an aside to people who think any topic is boring or inappropriate in net.religion (or net.anything else for that matter.) Use your 'n' key. This newsgroup is precisely for this kind of discussion and to inform and enlighten those people on the net who are interested in the issue of the Bible as History. If you are afraid, or not interested in seeing your beliefs challenged (this applies to people on both sides of the debate) then perhaps you would be well-advised to unsubscribe to this newsgroup. There is certainly no purpose in trying to quash legitimate debate. -- Byron Howes UNC - Chapel Hill decvax!duke!mcnc!unc!bch
david14@garfield.UUCP (David Janes) (12/01/83)
Addressing the subject of inspired writings of Paul ... > Instead of assuming the Bible is the Word of God, we can begin by > demonstrating that the Scriptures are basically reliable and trustworthy > historical documents. This is confirmed by applying the ordinary test of > historical critism to the Scriptures. What are these tests of 'historical critism.' There seems to be very little 'second sourcing' for any particular part of the old or new testament. The Romans, who kept fairly accurate records had none (that we have found) on a Jesus of Nazareth. Perhaps the test of historical critism applied to the Bible are 'well the Bible was God inspired, so it must be historically accurate...' That just brings us back to circular reasoning. > Once it is established that the Bible is a valid historical > record, the next point is realizing that Jesus Christ claims to be the > unique Son of God and that He bases this claim on His forthcoming > resurrection from the dead. Well, at this rate it is going to be a while before it is established ... > Next, we examine the evidence for the resurrection contained > in this historic document and find that the arguments overwhelmingly > support the contention that Christ has risen from the dead. If this > is true, then He is the unique Son of God as He claimed to be. If He > is indeed God, then He speaks with authority on all matters. I don't find the evidence (what little is presented) overwhelming. The body disappeared from his tomb. Big deal. Even documents considered historically accurate are not taken for truth verbatim, but are considered in light of the what the authors intention were. Certainly, the gospel writers in this case were trying to make plug for christianity (or the early Jewish version of it.) If they thought it was convenient for say, that Jesus's body should disappear from his tomb, and then a few days later pop up somewhere along way, why not write it in. It sure sounds convincing. > Since Jesus considered the Old Testament to be the Word > of God (Matthew 15:1-4; 5:17,18) and promised His disciples, who > either wrote or had control over the writings of the New Testament > books, that the Holy Spirit would bring all things back to their > remembrance (John 14:26), we can insist, with sound and accurate > logic, that the Bible is God's word. This is not circular reasoning. > It is establishing certain facts and basing conclusions on the > sound logical outcome of these facts. The case for Christianity > can be established by ordinary means of historical investigation. If you're going to talk about 'sound and accurate logic' please include all assumptions and refences that you're making, otherwise, all arguments based on the initial assumptions (that there is evidence that Bible is a trustworthy and reliable document based on tests of historical criticism) are meaningless. ------- - David Janes (Memorial University of Newfoundland) ...!{allegra, inhp4, utcsrgv}!garfield!david14
speaker@umcp-cs.UUCP (12/04/83)
The problem that I and probably most people have with this is... how can you be sure that everything in the bible is accurate historical record? We can't rely on statements contained in the bible that say, "Every statement contained herein is infallible"... that's why people object to this kind of reasoning as being cyclical. -- - Bessie the Hellcow speaker@umcp-cs speaker.umcp-cs@CSnet-Relay
speaker@umcp-cs.UUCP (12/07/83)
Romans, who kept fairly accurate records had none (that we have found) on a Jesus of Nazareth. I cannot out my finger on the proof, but I recall hearing about some records found that do describe Jesus physically Why would the Romans keep such records? I assume that they kept good records of judicial precedings. Is this true? If such records still exist, can they be authenticated? Anyone else heard know of such things? -- - Bessie the Hellcow speaker@umcp-cs speaker.umcp-cs@CSnet-Relay