Thursday, October 13, 2016

What ever happened to the Bible? Go on any message board where atheists congregate and start a discussion of any kind that invovles using the Bible as an authority and they will immediately say things that sound as though the Bible doesn't even exist. They regard it as such a pile of crap they wont even tolerate the possibility that it might be defended. One time on a message board (CARM) someone said that I have no way of distinguishing which passages are mythology and which are not. This is an atheist who knows me and knows I'm somewhat liberal. This guy was saying I can't distinguish true passages from ad ons but I just choose what I like. I listed a criteria for understanding mythology, it was a criteria based upon historical critical methods. This is what this other atheist responded. We also discussed the validation of the Bible as a historical artifact. I said the Gospels were historical artifacts that testify to the beliefs of the people who wrote them. That seems like a fairly a priori sort of statement--true by definition--but people are so bad at understanding logic they think that a priori must be a violation of logic instead a kind of logic, becuase they have been led to accept the phrase that teaches them to confuse true by definition with circular reasoning. So the second major issue for the day was historical life of Jesus and the inability of the Gospels to furnish any sort of historical documentation for the same. I listed three ways that we can validate the Gospels historically and this was one response: 


I had said that by historical critical methods we can corroborate the Gospels as historical evidence of Jesus' existence. I also laid out an extensive criteria for determining what is mythology and what is not. I didn't claim the Bible corroborates itself. There is obviously a method or no book could ever be corroborated. That method is called "historical critical method." This is so basic and these guys act like I made it up. They are practically saying there's no such thing as historical criticism. This more than more than anything else shows the Orwellian nature of atheism. Anything that they can't out argue by reason or historical fact they merely claim doesn't exist and make to go away because they don't like it. They just brain wash their mentions into thinking "there can't be such a thing as historical critical methods." 

7 levels of verification or Gospels

(1) The original pre Mark redaction
(2)the Pauline corups: Witnesses relying info to Paul and creedal formulae
(3) Paul's saying source
(4) extra canonical Gospels such as Peter and Thomas
(5) Oral tradition
(6)The Gospels themselves in the form in which we know them
(7) writers who write about their relationships with those who were there.


These "levels" represent source from which we get the Gospel story. Obviously some of them overlap such as pre Mark redaction and sources that use that redaction. But the same material comes up though different trajectories that is verification it shows that material was circulating and was available though more than one source. The empty tomb is part of pre Mark redactiomn it comes up in canonical gospels and non canonical gospels,



1) The original pre Mark redaction 

Sources of proof include Koester's book Ancient Christian Gospels, Jurgen denker, 
John D. Crosson, 
Ray Brown, 
Hennecke- 
Schneemelcher- 
Wilson, 
Philipp Vielhauer, Geschichte, 646 
Peter kirby says its consensus in the field. 



(2)the Pauline corups 
....(a) what he got form people who were there 
Quoting Paul himself: quotes James, the Jerusalem church's creedal formula and hymns. 

(3) his saying source. 
Koester documents 
synoptic saying source 

........(c) the chruch tradition he learned in Jerusalem 

(4) extra canonical Gospels such as Peter and Thomas 
Koester documents 
Hennecke-Schneemelcher-Wilson, NT Apocrypha 1.96 

Charles Hendrick and Paul Mirecki 

Ron Cameron, ed., The Other Gospels: Non-Canonical Gospel Texts (Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press 1982), pp. 23-37.) 

Peter KIrby's site "Gosepel of Thoams" 
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/thomas.html 

Stephen J. Patterson, Gospel of Thomas and Jesus 

Stevan L. Davies, The Gospel of Thomas: Annotated and Explained (Skylight Paths Pub 2002) 


(5) Oral tradition 
Papias (from Eusebius) 
Robert C. Cully,Oral Tradition and Biblical Studies 

(6)The Gospels themselves which reflect the community as a whole, a whole community full of people who were there. 

(7) writers who write about their relationships with those who were there. 
1 Clement (the source) 
Richardson and Fairweather, et al. Early Christian Fathers, New York: MacMillian, 1970 p.45-46). 
F.F. Bruce, NT documents 
Irenaeus, Agaisnt heresies and missing fragment supplied by Calvin ....college 

Eusebius Ecclesiastic histories 
Papias, fragments (Peter Kirby, Early Christian Writings, site:http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/papias.html 
Schoedel 1967: 91-92; 
Kortner 1983: 89-94, 167-72, 225-26). 
Documents of the Christian Church, edited by Henry Bettonson, Oxford University press 1963, 27). 

Ante-Nicene Fathers vol 1 
Calvin College 

Iranaeus describes works of Papis 

Seteven Carlson's site:http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/...ext/papias.htm 


these face statements like "the Gospels have no backing" and telling me I haven't done anything to prove anything, this is not good enough see? It's' an untruth. 

Here are three pages on religious A priori that apply the above outline and flesh it out with the actual  quotations.

1 comment:

cara menghilangkan penebalan dinding rahim paling efektif said...

Good day, I hope this day a blessing. I am glad to have this new knowledge of your content. thank you