Who checks the facts?

[OzSpen]

I think these facts are often important when it comes to convincing an unbelieving world.
Yes, they will not come to believe without the Holy Spirit's prompting, but as Christians called to defend the faith (apologetics), this knowledge can be very important.

Thanks, Deborah, but it's also import to help Christians become more assured in the foundation of their faith. If the NT documents are not historical documents with information that can be verified, Christians have something to be concerned about.

Oz

 

[jeff77]

I would point out archeology (like someone did already I think) and the many prophecies that have been fulfilled from Old Testament. Here is an article that talks about how the prophecies were so accurately described and fulfilled that it's improbability is trillions to 1 or more in ratio.

http://www.reasons.org/articles/art...ecy-evidence-for-the-reliability-of-the-bible

 

[King Dan of Great the 1st]

One guy I was talking with thinks eye witness is the weakest form of proof and nothing beats firm evidence.

But its easy to credit or discredit something, witness's of anything should give different accounts and at the same time not contradict, and thats what the Gospels give, different account from different people that all match without conflicting, so it has credibility.

I mean, ask someone why they believe the earth has a core as they have never seen the earths core eye witness, or the evidence the scientist have, nor have done the study themselves, yet believe it as truth, and they believe what they have not seen because they have faith a scientist is not lying to them.

(im not saying the earth does not have a core just using as example)

I mean, how do people believe so many things they have not eye witnessed themselves. What is evidence when you have to have faith in a expert analiser that cannot fail.

 

[King Dan of Great the 1st]

The roster crowed twice and the roster crowed three times. Its good to know there were two eye witness to the account. One witness heard the roster crow twice and another only heard it three times.

If the gospels said the exact same thing I would believe they were copies with only one witness and would discredit it.

Same with the tomb, one angel and two angels. I only seen one angel but you seen two angels, two seperate accounts to the fact.

 

[GodsGrace]

I would point out archeology (like someone did already I think) and the many prophecies that have been fulfilled from Old Testament. Here is an article that talks about how the prophecies were so accurately described and fulfilled that it's improbability is trillions to 1 or more in ratio.

http://www.reasons.org/articles/art...ecy-evidence-for-the-reliability-of-the-bible

Hi Jeff77,
When witnessing I like to use your method.
I don't understand the math in the link you posted, but here's how I understand prophecy - explained by a pastor in a Nazarene church many years ago:

The probability that anyone could fulfill one prophecy is very likely.
Two or three becomes increasingly difficult.
The probability that any one person could fulfill all the prophecies Jesus did would be equivalent to filling up all of Texas, 2 inches (feet?) high with quarters. You put one penny in there. The odds of finding that one penny right away are the same as the odds of Jesus fulfilling all the prophecies He did.

That brings it into perspective for me and with a non-believer would work better than to know exactly what date any bible book was written.

Wondering

 

[Douglas Summers]

This is a red herring of a reply.

Don't know what a red herring is? I only witnessed to you of Spiritual things. Not always recognized and often rebuked.

This is a red herring of a reply.

 

[GodsGrace]

One guy I was talking with thinks eye witness is the weakest form of proof and nothing beats firm evidence.

But its easy to credit or discredit something, witness's of anything should give different accounts and at the same time not contradict, and thats what the Gospels give, different account from different people that all match without conflicting, so it has credibility.

I mean, ask someone why they believe the earth has a core as they have never seen the earths core eye witness, or the evidence the scientist have, nor have done the study themselves, yet believe it as truth, and they believe what they have not seen because they have faith a scientist is not lying to them.

(im not saying the earth does not have a core just using as example)

I mean, how do people believe so many things they have not eye witnessed themselves. What is evidence when you have to have faith in a expert analiser that cannot fail.

The above would go to what I learned years ago: That we are able to have faith based on what the Apostles (and writers of the N.T.) had passed on down to reach us because they were persons that could be trusted.

Regarding the eyewitness account: This is true in a court trial. Eyewitnesses sometimes mistake identities and this has caused innocent people to be incarcerated. DNA, or other physical evidence, OTOH, cannot be denied. So your friend is correct here.

However, I hope he's not applying this to the N.T. because it would not apply. The eyewitnesses, in this case, were with Jesus for over 3 years and no mistake could be made on their part - as to what Jesus said or did.

Wondering
P.S. I also have always found comfort in the fact that the 3 synoptic gospels are NOT exactly the same.

 

[OzSpen]

Don't know what a red herring is? I only witnessed to you of Spiritual things. Not always recognized and often rebuked.

Have you ever heard of Googling 'red herring' to find the meaning? Here is an explanation (in the link) of a red herring logical fallacy. I see too many of logical fallacies used on CFnet. When you use a logical fallacy, we cannot have a logical discussion about a topic you might raise as it engages in erroneous reasoning. That link should give you a good explanation of a red herring. It is like this one:

(source)

 

[Douglas Summers]

Have you ever heard of Googling 'red herring' to find the meaning? Here is an explanation (in the link) of a red herring logical fallacy. I see too many of logical fallacies used on CFnet. When you use a logical fallacy, we cannot have a logical discussion about a topic you might raise as it engages in erroneous reasoning. That link should give you a good explanation of a red herring. It is like this one:

(source)

That is carnal wisdom for those who do not understand Spiritual obedience and the purpose of God's calling to each one of us. Not all have the same gifts, but all are of the one body. Why would I google red herring? It is not in Scripture. This discussion came about by your reasoning that it takes church history for you to decide if Matthew is authentic. And I witnessed that history of the church has nothing to do with the word of God and it's witness of Christ our Savior through His Holy Word (apart from history) I did not say that history should not be studied. I said you do not need history to know and trust Christ through the Scriptures. One is Spiritual and supernatural to know the Lord personally. The other is standing outside the camp, making carnal decisions observed from the outside weather to accept or reject if Scripture is true or not. The word of God (The Bible) is itself the Bread of Life alone. It does not need to be authenticated. It speaks for its self. This is what I get from your comment here "It may not be important to you, but for me as a Bible teacher it is one piece of information that I seek to determine the authenticity and validity of the Gospel of Matthew."
I did not need authentication for the Scriptures to draw me to Christ....it was His word. That is where I stand, now and forever. If you want to do an informative and rich study. Study the 400 or so years between the two testaments and the genealogy of the priesthood of the Maccabees of Israel at that time and how it involves the Herod's and the desecration of the temple by Antiocus..

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

One guy I was talking with thinks eye witness is the weakest form of proof and nothing beats firm evidence.

But its easy to credit or discredit something, witness's of anything should give different accounts and at the same time not contradict, and thats what the Gospels give, different account from different people that all match without conflicting, so it has credibility.

I mean, ask someone why they believe the earth has a core as they have never seen the earths core eye witness, or the evidence the scientist have, nor have done the study themselves, yet believe it as truth, and they believe what they have not seen because they have faith a scientist is not lying to them.

(im not saying the earth does not have a core just using as example)

I mean, how do people believe so many things they have not eye witnessed themselves. What is evidence when you have to have faith in a expert analiser that cannot fail.

In my opinion, if eye witnesses were so weak, they would not be part of what's needed by The Old Testiment Law to make an accusation of someone breaking the law. Still, that's not the best reasoning when trying to discuss the trustworthiness of a witness to someone who doubts the bible to begin with. So challenge the perspective with an observation.

When one person gives their witness about anything, let them know that it's true that there is sometimes faults in the testimony, whether it was how they remembered it, or biases they held to color what they thought they saw. However when there are two or more witnesses, even if indivually they can have the same potential fault, combined the witnesses confirm eachother, and smooth out eachother's biases or misremembered details, to give the testimony a better picture. I've seen this several times when trying to figure what happened and hearing a second point of view, and I think it might be a very valid reason why the Old Testiment Laws require two or more witnesses to make an accusation.

 

[LovethroughDove]

How can we check the facts after they are accepted as facts?

The Holy Spirit will impress upon your Soul that it is the facts. Until that moment I accepted the fact that Jesus really is who he said he is and he really did raise from the dead and his body didn't die again, I was confused with anything the bible was stating.

The Holy Spirit guides believers into understanding. Now I can tell if someone is misquoting scripture instantly, the truth is in my Soul. That is how the entire came into being, the Holy Spirit spits out any lie.

 

[OzSpen]

That is carnal wisdom for those who do not understand Spiritual obedience and the purpose of God's calling to each one of us.

To even read your post and for you to read mine, you have to use logic, which you falsely label as 'carnal wisdom'. Do you understand the meaning of logic and how it applies to writing normal sentences? If you did, you would not be calling the labelling of your false reasoning by the use of a logical fallacy, to be 'carnal wisdom'.

Please smell the daisies of the need for logic when you write on this forum and to be able to recognise the false reasoning you use when you use illogical daisies.

(public domain)​

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

I think these facts are often important when it comes to convincing an unbelieving world.
Yes, they will not come to believe without the Holy Spirit's prompting, but as Christians called to defend the faith (apologetics), this knowledge can be very important.

Deborah, I endorse your observations and conclusions. But you notice in this short thread that there are those who do not want to go down the hard road of investigating historical details regarding authorship of Bible books.

Take the comment in #57, 'The fact is there is no proof by the historians for surety of published dates, nor does it matter, it is the content'.

It is true that there is no absolute way of knowing the deatails in history, but there is information that points to facts beyond reasonable doubt. It does matter to know in which era a book of the Bible was published when one is in debate with a secularist over Gospel content.

In addition, the perspective quoted, 'It is the content' that is important is a self-defeating statement. How does one know the content of an historical document (including Scripture) without having some assurance that the document is reasonably accurate and placed in a certain time of history? Of course I'm not denigrating the ministry of the Holy Spirit, but Scripture puts words on pages that need to be read with understanding - historical understanding.

Oz

 

[Douglas Summers]

To even read your post and for you to read mine, you have to use logic, which you falsely label as 'carnal wisdom'. Do you understand the meaning of logic and how it applies to writing normal sentences? If you did, you would not be calling the labelling of your false reasoning by the use of a logical fallacy, to be 'carnal wisdom'.

Please smell the daisies of the need for logic when you write on this forum and to be able to recognise the false reasoning you use when you use illogical daisies.

(public domain)​

Oz

Spiritually (we) judge all things, but I'am judged by no man.

 

[OzSpen]

Spiritually (we) judge all things, but I'am judged by no man.

Douglas,

It's too bad that you didn't take notice of the content I gave you of the link to a red herring logical fallacy. Here you've done it again with another red herring. Why don't you take notice and change the illogical thinking that you used here?

Oz

 

[Douglas Summers]

Douglas,

It's too bad that you didn't take notice of the content I gave you of the link to a red herring logical fallacy. Here you've done it again with another red herring. Why don't you take notice and change the illogical thinking that you used here?

Oz

Because we are discussing on two different planes. Carnal and Spiritual The Spiritual is what you call a red herring or that the Spirit needs to smell the daisy's. BTW, those are not daisy's, They are called (Pericallis) originated from the Canary Islands The reason I know is because I planted some this year. I'am done with the discussion, But know this one thing about teaching, anytime a man feels pride of what he teaches or feels he is important for what he knows, it is not from God. When a man is called to teach it is the Spirit of the Lord that teaches through the born again believer, which Joy and peace is the result and does not put suspect or caution to the word of God. I do not teach with the wisdom of man or enticing words so that it sounds like the wisdom of man, but in weakness of the flesh so that the power of Christ may be manifest and not I. You may make naught of this, but this is exactly how the Spirit humbles us in service to the Lord. I could tell you how the Lord used me in his calling and election of me, but like many, they think I'am egotistic or a know it all. But those who receive such teaching and pastoring with Spiritual gain. Know it is from the Lord and not from me. For the praise they have is for the grace and the knowledge of God, and a peace that man can not give.

 

[OzSpen]

Because we are discussing on two different planes. Carnal and Spiritual The Spiritual is what you call a red herring or that the Spirit needs to smell the daisy's. BTW, those are not daisy's, They are called (Pericallis) originated from the Canary Islands The reason I know is because I planted some this year. I'am done with the discussion, But know this one thing about teaching, anytime a man feels pride of what he teaches or feels he is important for what he knows, it is not from God. When a man is called to teach it is the Spirit of the Lord that teaches through the born again believer, which Joy and peace is the result and does not put suspect or caution to the word of God. I do not teach with the wisdom of man or enticing words so that it sounds like the wisdom of man, but in weakness of the flesh so that the power of Christ may be manifest and not I. You may make naught of this, but this is exactly how the Spirit humbles us in service to the Lord. I could tell you how the Lord used me in his calling and election of me, but like many, they think I'am egotistic or a know it all. But those who receive such teaching and pastoring with Spiritual gain. Know it is from the Lord and not from me. For the praise they have is for the grace and the knowledge of God, and a peace that man can not give.

Douglas,

It so happens that the Pericallis is a dazzling daisy relative.

(courtesy Learn2Grow)

Since you claim that you are the spiritual one and others see you as an egotistic know it all, I have concluded in agreement with the latter. Seems to me that you are the one that needs to learn2grow to eliminate the egotistical, unspiritual characteristics.

Bye,
Oz

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

Because we are discussing on two different planes. Carnal and Spiritual The Spiritual is what you call a red herring or that the Spirit needs to smell the daisy's. BTW, those are not daisy's, They are called (Pericallis) originated from the Canary Islands The reason I know is because I planted some this year. I'am done with the discussion, But know this one thing about teaching, anytime a man feels pride of what he teaches or feels he is important for what he knows, it is not from God. When a man is called to teach it is the Spirit of the Lord that teaches through the born again believer, which Joy and peace is the result and does not put suspect or caution to the word of God. I do not teach with the wisdom of man or enticing words so that it sounds like the wisdom of man, but in weakness of the flesh so that the power of Christ may be manifest and not I. You may make naught of this, but this is exactly how the Spirit humbles us in service to the Lord. I could tell you how the Lord used me in his calling and election of me, but like many, they think I'am egotistic or a know it all. But those who receive such teaching and pastoring with Spiritual gain. Know it is from the Lord and not from me. For the praise they have is for the grace and the knowledge of God, and a peace that man can not give.

Douglas,

It so happens that the Pericallis is a dazzling daisy relative.

(courtesy Learn2Grow)

Since you claim that you are the spiritual one and others see you as an egotistic know it all, I have concluded in agreement with the latter. Seems to me that you are the one that needs to learn2grow to eliminate the egotistical, unspiritual characteristics.

Bye,
Oz

This has become a personal argument between both of you, and is no longer about the topics you both started with. You can tell because while in responses the drive to show the other person as wrong has even started with the flowers used in one of the responses to whether they are daisies. Step off of this, both of you. Here is the merit I think you are both trying to offer. (Originally were trying to offer.)

Oz, you have put a good amount of an explaination for why we need to know the history of the bible in order to defend against people's doubts of the bible. Both with believers and no believers. And have articulated some resources to continue the search for a knowledge base. That is awesome, and I thank you for that.

Douglas, I get your point as well. That our focus should be about God and let The Holy Spirit guide us. That way we are not bogged down with extra stuff that later might be turned out in error, but instead let God speak through us and save those that He will. I get that and I agree with the need to rely on our spiritual walk. But that said look at the conversation so far. What you've said seems like a slap in the face to Oz's reasurch and the tools he is trying to give anyone serious enough to pick them up and fight the ongoing perception that the bible is a fairytale. His resonse to your first comment says about as much, which if I read this conversation correctly you've taken insult to his responses. (Which is easy to see why Oz, just say'n.)

With a little bit of hashing it out I had hoped you both would gain something from the other person, because there is merit in both. Instead, we are arguing that Oz is using carnal wisdom and Douglas is refusing logic. No wonder it's grown to arguing about what is a daisy in the efforts to disprove and discredit the other person. And that's where I draw the line. Step off, both of you from your discussion with eachother. At least for now, and let your thoughts calm and move on to other things. Please, or this will only grow to outside threads between you too as well. Stop the butting heads while it's small and manageable.

 

[GodsGrace]

NNS,
Are you married?
I think I love you.
Oh. Wait. I'M married!!
Too bad.
You're such a level headed guy.

No kidding. You're so level headed. Everything you say is true. Not too many people can see both sides of the coin...

Oz deserves respect and admiration for all the work he's put into learning about the Word of God.
I've read some of his articles and they are truly incredible and rich in detail.

Douglas Summers is also correct is saying that a non-believer or new believer will need to learn spiritual matters before historical matters.

BOTH are necessary. There should be no argument of this.

BTW, ALL flowers are beautiful, no matter their name or what family of flower they come from!

Now, to get back to your question:
So here's my question. How can we check the facts after they are accepted as facts? If it's noted that "scholars agree that ________" but over all don't give any more detail for why they agree or how to back it up then how can we check those fact to ensure they are accurate?

My original point was that if one is seeking to know the history of the bible BEFORE coming to accept Jesus as Lord and Messiah, it makes me doubt the sincerity.

OTOH, some people might actually need history to be convinced. In this case, Oz seems to have provided you with names of books and links which could be very useful. You should check out this link from him:
https://spencer.gear.dyndns.org/2013/09/25/why-is-apologetics-in-such-low-demand-in-the-church/

Wondering

 

[OzSpen]

This has become a personal argument between both of you, and is no longer about the topics you both started with. You can tell because while in responses the drive to show the other person as wrong has even started with the flowers used in one of the responses to whether they are daisies. Step off of this, both of you. Here is the merit I think you are both trying to offer. (Originally were trying to offer.)

Oz, you have put a good amount of an explaination for why we need to know the history of the bible in order to defend against people's doubts of the bible. Both with believers and no believers. And have articulated some resources to continue the search for a knowledge base. That is awesome, and I thank you for that.

Douglas, I get your point as well. That our focus should be about God and let The Holy Spirit guide us. That way we are not bogged down with extra stuff that later might be turned out in error, but instead let God speak through us and save those that He will. I get that and I agree with the need to rely on our spiritual walk. But that said look at the conversation so far. What you've said seems like a slap in the face to Oz's reasurch and the tools he is trying to give anyone serious enough to pick them up and fight the ongoing perception that the bible is a fairytale. His resonse to your first comment says about as much, which if I read this conversation correctly you've taken insult to his responses. (Which is easy to see why Oz, just say'n.)

With a little bit of hashing it out I had hoped you both would gain something from the other person, because there is merit in both. Instead, we are arguing that Oz is using carnal wisdom and Douglas is refusing logic. No wonder it's grown to arguing about what is a daisy in the efforts to disprove and discredit the other person. And that's where I draw the line. Step off, both of you from your discussion with eachother. At least for now, and let your thoughts calm and move on to other things. Please, or this will only grow to outside threads between you too as well. Stop the butting heads while it's small and manageable.

NNS,

This is not a personal argument between Douglas and me. It has nothing whatsoever to do with personal issues. I deal with the content of what a person writes. This is the fruit by which we recognise each other on this forum (see Matt 7:16 NIV).

Oz