How do we know that the Bible is the Word of God?

[Guest]

Don't confuse my support of one small portion of what I quoted with support of the source.
That was your mistake in the first place.
It most certainly is on topic because it further validates that we don't know that the Bible is the word of God, except by faith.
Logic and historical evidences may occaisionaly add verification to what is known by faith, but they are poor substitutes for faith itself. Faith comes thru grace, not thru logic or objective historical references.
That is my point.

 

[wavy]

I've seen no reasonable arguments in this thread proving or even evidencing inspiration.


~eric

 

[wavy]

To be objective the bible must be first approached as any other historical document. The manuscript evidence, archeological evidence, etc... let us know it is a reliable historical document.

It's 'historical reliability' is limited. Don't over exaggerate it.

The NT in particular claims to be eye witness testimony to the Jewish Messiah claiming divinity. The eyewitness testimony is reliable (the witness were contemporaries, who recorded their testimony early, and died rather than retract it). Jesus confirms His divinity claims via the resurrection. Jesus recognized the OT. Jesus also promised to start a church and teach his followers all things (the NT writers). These bodies of believers recognized these documents immeadiately and with relatively very little debate as the word of God. This recognition has existed without interuption for nearly 2000 years.

The 'eyewitness testimony' is not reliable because you cannot offer objective evidence that any of the authors of the New Testament were eyewitnesses. Only die-hard conservatives hold this view (for obvious traditional and fundamental reasons), and they comprise a minority of biblical scholarship.

Theism is true (the classical arguments are solid).

And, praytell, what would those 'solid' arguments be?

Christianity is true (It is the lone religion where God himself came and proved Himself- in a historically reliable way).

An assertion backed by no evidence.

The Bible is the Book recognized by all Christians as the Word of God.

And the Koran is recognized by all Muslims as the word of 'God'. What is your point?

I think someone could only recognize the Bible as the Word of God after they realized Christianity was true.

Amazing logic there. 'Only after you believe can you believe it.'

~eric

 

[Guest]

As regards this topic and in response to Rick Otto's statement i submit the following; _____The church has always taught that there is a twofold order of knowledge, and that these two orders are distinguished from one another not only in their principle but in their object; in one we know by natural reason, in the other by Divine faith; the object of the one is truth attainable by natural reason, the object of the other is mysteries hidden in God, but which we have to believe and which can only be known to us by Divine revelation." Now intellectual knowledge may be defined in a general way as the union between the intellect and an intelligible object. But a truth is intelligible to us only in so far as it is evident to us, and evidence is of different kinds; hence, according to the varying character of the evidence, we shall have varying kinds of knowledge. Thus a truth may be self-evident -- e.g. the whole is greater than its part -- in which case we are said to have intuitive knowledge of it; or the truth may not be self-evident, but deducible from premises in which it is contained -- such knowledge is termed reasoned knowledge; or again a truth may be neither self-evident nor deducible from premises in which it is contained, yet the intellect may be obliged to assent to it because It would else have to reject some other universally accepted truth; lastly, the intellect may be induced to assent to a truth for none of the foregoing reasons, but solely because, though not evident in itself, this truth rests on grave authority -- for example, we accept the statement that the sun is 90,000,000 miles distant from the earth because competent, veracious authorities vouch for the fact. This last kind of knowledge is termed faith, and is clearly necessary in daily life. If the authority upon which we base our assent is human and therefore fallible, we have human and fallible faith; if the authority is Divine, we have Divine and infallible faith. If to this be added the medium by which the Divine authority for certain statements is put before us, viz. the Catholic Church, we have Divine-Catholic Faith.


______Now after considering this exerpt on faith from the catholic encyclopedia we may then ask is the faith required to accept the bible as the word of God derived from intellectual knowledge of human fallable faith or divine infallable faith?_______St. Augustine spoke of the signs that are witnessable to us as proofs of God's existance in the world, where there is smoke there is fire, if we see deer tracks in the sand we can believe without knowing that a deer has crossed this beach. In response to Rick Otto I would say that although his qouted source relays a partial truth in that there are very few secular documents outside the gospels that can attest to Jesus existing, this is not surprising as the faith handed down from the apostles was primarily orally. I would suggest that there is another "footprint in the sand" as it were and this would be that same apostolic faith and it's catholic (universal) impact in history. This great handing down which included so much more human history than is documented by all sources whether secular (and I would submit that although I've not read them I believe there are gnostic gospels that attest to Jesus' existance) or Christian (ie; Catholic esp at this time in history) see early church fathers like St. Justin Martyr or early church writings such as the didache._____To sum up ( imo) Faith in the Bible being the inspired word of God would of neccesity require divine revelation and therefore divine infallable faith. This would also apply to Jesus being the son of God. But when it comes to Jesus existing in time, the man himself in human history this faith is easily aquirable through the signs ie; human fallable faith through natural reason._______Also a final comment to Rick Otto; The reason I always check sources is for signs. ______in peace; Deardogma

 

[francisdesales]

It's 'historical reliability' is limited. Don't over exaggerate it.

As a former miliatary historian, don't over-exaggerate the "historical reliability" of anything written about the ancient world.

Consider Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar and what we know about THEM from the sources who wrote about them. Our best sources of these two miliatary geniuses were written by men who lived hundreds of years after the fact...

Once you become aware of that fact, you will give more leeway to your "historical reliability" level. We don't subject ancient history to 21st century standards.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Address the issue if in fact you are able. I will accept any plausible information regardless of the source.

What exactly is "plausible information"? Information that fits the paradigm invented?

In history, sources are KEY!!! Not what fits a pre-conceived pet theory. The best sources trump other sources in historical research.

For example, which would be the better source, an eyewitness, or someone with an agenda who writes 500 years later that disparages the eyewitness? They ARE BOTH "SOURCES" that are "plausible". However, the former source trumps the later source - UNLESS one can show from multiple reliable sources that the former source was a liar...

Thus, the demand for good sources is a reasonable demand, when discussing history.

Regards

 

[Guest]

We don't subject ancient history to 21st century standards.

Sure we do. Just as much as we subject ancient history to 21st century prejudices.

"...the intellect may be induced to assent to a truth for none of the foregoing reasons, but solely because, though not evident in itself, this truth rests on grave authority--"

As in "Do as I say & not as I do.", "grave authority" is not a guarantee of veracity.

The divinity of the authority of the RC is arguable at best.
Faith is not arguable. Be careful where you place it.

 

[Guest]

Address the issue if in fact you are able. I will accept any plausible information regardless of the source.

What exactly is "plausible information"? Information that fits the paradigm invented?

No, that's why I'm no longer RC.

In history, sources are KEY!!! Not what fits a pre-conceived pet theory. The best sources trump other sources in historical research.

...And the "best sources" fit your paradigm?
Paradagms are the issue. They are taken on faith, not proof.

For example, which would be the better source, an eyewitness, or someone with an agenda who writes 500 years later that disparages the eyewitness? They ARE BOTH "SOURCES" that are "plausible". However, the former source trumps the later source - UNLESS one can show from multiple reliable sources that the former source was a liar...

No, chronological order doesn't determine veracity either.
Multiple reliable sources is exactly what the historical veracity of the existance of Jesus is lacking.

Thus, the demand for good sources is a reasonable demand, when discussing history.

Then you agree my demand is reasonable.
Please don't try & present my own position as an arguement against me. 8-)

 

[Veritas]

There is no verifiable historic validity to the Gospel outside itself.
It fails miserably by any sensible standard of objectivity.

" For all his influence on the world, there's better evidence that he never even existed than that he did. We have absolutely no reliable evidence, from secular sources, that Jesus ever lived, or that any of the events surrounding his life as described in the four Gospels ever happened.

Seems to me this is an odd statement. All his influence on the world points to His existence. Also, many of the places, dates, and descriptions of places in the Gospel accounts as well as Acts are quite historically verifiable.

It is illogical to try and satisfy a spiritual hunger with the intellectual food of logic.

On some levels this is true... but we are, at times, asked to use our logic as well...

"Come now, let us reason together,"
says the LORD. Isaiah 1:18

Even Paul used reason when witnessing:

As his custom was, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, Acts 17:2

So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there. Acts 17:17

Every Sabbath he reasoned in the synagogue, trying to persuade Jews and Greeks. Acts 18:14

They arrived at Ephesus, where Paul left Priscilla and Aquila. He himself went into the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews. Acts 18:19

"I am not insane, most excellent Festus," Paul replied. "What I am saying is true and reasonable.
Acts 26:25
Peter beckoned us to use reason as well...

But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, 1 Peter 3:15

And following off of the theme of that last bit... I think this concept of "gentleness and respect" should be remembered not only when talking to unbelievers, but also to those whom you think are in danger of being numbered as unbelievers. I'm assuming you consider Catholics in danger of that. I am not a Catholic but I definately consider them my brothers and sisters in Christ. Even if you don't consider them that I don't think it is a good thing to treat them without gentleness and respect. And I'd have to say that I get upset when folks (especially those who I think are brothers in Christ) use tones similar to what you've presented so far. ....I dunno, its just an upsetting picture you've got there...

 

[Guest]

It's a picture of the pope smiling. What's upsetting about it?

All his influence on the world points to His existence. Also, many of the places, dates, and descriptions of places in the Gospel accounts as well as Acts are quite historically verifiable

I completely agree. Now historicaly verify His existence & I'll agree my statement seems odd.

we are, at times, asked to use our logic as well

Again, I agree, but this thread subject is not one of those times. Paul reasoned from scriptures with people who agreed with him about their being the word of God.

I am not a Catholic but I definately consider them my brothers and sisters in Christ.

Me too. We are all equaly in danger of apostacy. In fact, most of Protestantism has fallen victim to counter-reformation measures. I only agree with Calvin on soteriology, parting ways with him on ecclesiology, especialy in the area of church discipline.

Even if you don't consider them that I don't think it is a good thing to treat them without gentleness and respect. And I'd have to say that I get upset when folks (especially those who I think are brothers in Christ) use tones similar to what you've presented so far.

I don't like your tone. You're upsetting me. Be more gentle & respectful with me. :wink:
You've been selective with you're criticism & vague with your accusation, which is callous, not respectful.

Pr 18:24 - A man that hath friends must shew himself friendly: and there is a friend that sticketh closer than a brother.

 

[francisdesales]

No, that's why I'm no longer RC.

I am not addressing that right now. I am talking about different sources and their various levels of reliability.

Paradagms are the issue. They are taken on faith, not proof.

As I said, the best sources are more reliable.

Everything is taken on "faith", to include whether President Bush is the current president of the US ...

The point is that we base our paradigms on the best sources - unless we are not really in search of truth, but rather trying to erect a structure that supports a pre-conceived notion.

No, chronological order doesn't determine veracity either.
Multiple reliable sources is exactly what the historical veracity of the existance of Jesus is lacking.

I didn't say chronological sources were more reliable, did I? I said some sources are better than others. Thus, sources THEMSELVES are not all equal. One who has an eye witness is more likely to develop a paradigm of reality. The one who does not have an eye witness, but calls upon someone who is proven to by other sources to be a liar is not developing a paradigm based upon reality.

Now, can you point to some contemporary source that shows the Gospel of Matthew is not reliable? An axiom of historical research is to give the benefit of the doubt to the writer UNTIL his reliability is impinged upon by a more reliable writer.

See why sources are so important in historical research?

Please don't try & present my own position as an arguement against me. 8-)

[/quote]

Don't try to change your position. You said you view all "plausible sources". I merely am saying all sources are not equal, nor is holding to "plausible sources" necessarily unbiased and without problems - since YOU become the judge of what is plausible based upon already preconceived notions. Thus, the original call to consider better sources as more authoritative is to be heeded.

Regards

 

[Veritas]

It's a picture of the pope smiling. What's upsetting about it?....

I don't like your tone. You're upsetting me. Be more gentle & respectful with me.
You've been selective with you're criticism & vague with your accusation, which is callous, not respectful.

I'm trying!!! Its just that the picture looks like you might be trying to get those who hold the man highly to react very negatively.. its not a very flattering picture! I realize I should probably be talking to some of my other brothers in Christ as well about this, and I've kind of picked on you because I happened to be browsing this thread.

Again, I agree, but this thread subject is not one of those times. Paul reasoned from scriptures with people who agreed with him about their being the word of God.

And the Greeks? What about Paul talking to people in Athens in Acts 17?

I am not a Catholic but I definately consider them my brothers and sisters in Christ.

Me too. We are all equaly in danger of apostacy. In fact, most of Protestantism has fallen victim to counter-reformation measures. I only agree with Calvin on soteriology, parting ways with him on ecclesiology, especialy in the area of church discipline.

Oh... okay, good to know.

 

[Guest]

I am not addressing that right now. I am talking about different sources and their various levels of reliability.

In both cases it is a matter of source reliability.

As I said, the best sources are more reliable.

Do you realize the subjectivity in your own definition of "best" & "reliable"? If so, you would allow me the same freedom of choice in defining those to adjectives.

Everything is taken on "faith", to include whether President Bush is the current president of the US ...

Which is my whole point in this thread, and my answer to the OP:"How do we know that the Bible is the Word of God?"
By faith.

The point is that we base our paradigms on the best sources - unless we are not really in search of truth, but rather trying to erect a structure that supports a pre-conceived notion.

Truth is a pre-conceived notion.

I didn't say chronological sources were more reliable, did I?

Yeah, you did with the exception of a proven case of fraud. No biggie.
[quote:0e832]I said some sources are better than others. Thus, sources THEMSELVES are not all equal.

Some are more equal. :wink:

One who has an eye witness is more likely to develop a paradigm of reality.

I don't believe so. I believe everyone accepts or rejects paradagms & is individualy responsible for doing so. Romans 1:20 tells us the knowlege of the existence of God is innate, thus explaining the how it is that "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God."
That truth is preconceived, residing within us & requiring the fallen attribute of foolishness to reject it.

The one who does not have an eye witness, but calls upon someone who is proven to by other sources to be a liar is not developing a paradigm based upon reality.

Reality is a new term for truth. Stick to fewer terms so as not to introduce confusing ambiguities of nuance please, because we obviously have accepted & rejected different paragms that colour our definitions, a point we would do well to remember because it will allow us to agree to disagree.

Now, can you point to some contemporary source that shows the Gospel of Matthew is not reliable? An axiom of historical research is to give the benefit of the doubt to the writer UNTIL his reliability is impinged upon by a more reliable writer.

My whole point on that is that the lack of contemporary corrolation by neutral &/or negative sources renders the Bible as a historicaly unreliable source on the issue of the existence of the person Jesus Christ. It relates back to the OP in that (in my view) it is a matter of faith & doesn't or at least shouldn't, rely on the classical standards of critical analysis of hitorical evidence.

See why sources are so important in historical research?

Absolutely. Do see why historical research is relatively unimportant in matters of faith?

Please don't try & present my own position as an arguement against me. 8-)

[/quote:0e832]

Don't try to change your position.

I didn't at all. My position is that knowing that the Bible is the word of God is a matter of faith.

You said you view all "plausible sources".

I said that in regards to historical evidences of the existence of Jesus, not in regards to how I know the Bible is the word of God.

I merely am saying all sources are not equal, nor is holding to "plausible sources" necessarily unbiased and without problems - since YOU become the judge of what is plausible based upon already preconceived notions. Thus, the original call to consider better sources as more authoritative is to be heeded.

That's exactly why I said I would consider them, but in regards to why or how we know the Bible is the word of God, rather in regards to how we know Jesus existed.
I apologize if you're confusion is somehow my fault.
Keep the faith, brother. 8-)

 

[Guest]

I'm trying!!!

I believe you & I sincerely appreciate it.

.. its not a very flattering picture!

Please do tell me how so. He is smiling a bit puckishly in a Santa hat, which shows a sense of humor to me. I consider it a gross application of an obvious double standard when others can post him in a Dagon fish-head hat & garishly pompous costume without even comment, and my picture gets deleted without even consultation, as if I wouldn't have done it myself out of courtesy if asked.

I realize I should probably be talking to some of my other brothers in Christ as well about this, and I've kind of picked on you because I happened to be browsing this thread.

I think you're kinda right.

And the Greeks? What about Paul talking to people in Athens in Acts 17?

Excuse me, did Paul ask the Greeks "How do WE know the Bible is the word of God?"
What about that not being one of those times either?
Are you aware of how you are confusing the issues?
8-)
I let myself be considered RC as long & as much as my conscience would allow (meaning until I was legaly an adult). Becoming X-Catholic did not for me mean becoming error-free. I could no more condemn them for their errors than I could condemn myself for my own, but I nevertheless condemn error itself. It is in confusion of the issues that I find myself getting villified, and try to restrict my rebuking error to the humor in sarcasm, a form of humor that many fail to appreciate.
IF I were to call the office of Papacy anti-Christ, or the RC religion the apostate "whore of Babylon", it would not equate to personaly condemning the individual person of the pope, clergy, &/or laity. Likewise, if I were to quote Revelation 17:5 in explaining that most of Protestantism has become apostate "daughters of the harlot".
As you might've guessed by now, I am not very popular in Churchianity.

 

[Guest]

Good morning Rick Otto; We dialogued a few pages back and I promised to reply which I have. I'm as new as you are here same day in fact. I'm not sure how to bump my post so I'm politely requesting you go back to it and reply. I believe it is very much on topic._____in peace Deardogma

 

[Guest]

G'day to you, sir.
I responded to what I considered to be the premise of your reply in the second half of my first post near the top of page 4 of this thread. (I'm not sure if this post will be on the same page or end up on a page 5).

 

[Guest]

Sorry Rick, I've read and re-read your posts, nothing seems to be addressing what I've submitted. ______in peace D.D.

 

[Guest]

You submitted this:

"...the intellect may be induced to assent to a truth for none of the foregoing reasons, but solely because, though not evident in itself, this truth rests on grave authority--"

To which I responded:

As in "Do as I say & not as I do.", "grave authority" is not a guarantee of veracity.

The divinity of the authority of the RC is arguable at best.
Faith is not arguable. Be careful where you place it.

...To which I would ad, that intellectual assent is not about faith, which is what I assert is the answer to the OP question. So you're submission doesn't address my position.

 

[Guest]

You are correct in that you did address a part of my post, I apologize for missing that twice. However this seems to me to be an innefective rebuttal to my post taken in it's entirety and more specificly that the faith required to accept that Jesus was in fact an actual historic figure in time is easily aquirable through the knowledge of the existance in time of this body of believers. I am politely requesting that you re-read and attempt again to counter the statements I have posted in their entirety. In addition your claim that "that intellectual assent is not about faith" is addressed in my post._____peace; Deardogma

 

[francisdesales]

In both cases it is a matter of source reliability.

Why you left the Catholic Church has little to do with "source reliability". Thus, we'll leave that aside for now, since it is not on topic.

As I said, the best sources are more reliable.

Do you realize the subjectivity in your own definition of "best" & "reliable"? If so, you would allow me the same freedom of choice in defining those to adjectives.

Hardly. The field of historical research, as any other, has objective standards. There is wide spread agreement (maybe universal) that an eye witness who has not impinged upon his reliability in other works IS INDEED a better and more reliable witness than someone 500 years removed. These objective rules are hardly "subjective". Thus, you don't have the same freedom of choice when defining which sources are better IF you want to remain unbiased and objective.

Which is my whole point in this thread, and my answer to the OP:"How do we know that the Bible is the Word of God?" By faith.

While a partial truth, it does not present the whole truth. Historical research, when analyzing the writings of the Apostles as simple writings, have a historical veracity that have yet to be contradicted by other historical works. I presented two military generals, Alexander and Julius, as examples. We know about them strictly through "faith". However, using the historical axiom that we give the historian the benefit of the doubt, military historians accept what we have available on Alexander, although there are no extant writings that are contemporary with Alexander. WHICH military historian doubts that Alexander led the Macedonians to victory at Arbela?

The point? If we place the books of the Bible to the SAME historical scrutiny, we can rely upon their historical veracity to even a BETTER degree than we do with the above military figures - BECAUSE we have actual eyewitnesses (esp. Acts of the Apostles). WITHIN these writings we find a figure named Jesus of Nazereth. There is absolutely no reason to discount these contemporary writings. Thus, historically speaking, we have concluded that we must accept that Jesus of Nazareth existed with even GREATER certainty than Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar. This, so far, has not even tread upon "faith". Faith only tells part of the story. Historical analysis can conclude that an unbiased person could accept the individual writings of what is now called the New Testament as historical valid, accurate, and worthy of consideration.

In other words, one could use a great deal of historical research to conclude to a large degree that the Bible is what it claims to be. If a person is not a priori committed to disbelief and is open to the possibility, one can conclude that the Bible is indeed accurate.

Truth is a pre-conceived notion.

Some truths are objective. Such as an eyewitness is more valid a source than someone 500 years removed...

I didn't say chronological sources were more reliable, did I?
Yeah, you did with the exception of a proven case of fraud. No biggie.

No, I didn't mention anything about chronology. I was discussing eyewitnesses.

I don't believe so. I believe everyone accepts or rejects paradagms & is individualy responsible for doing so. Romans 1:20 tells us the knowlege of the existence of God is innate, thus explaining the how it is that "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God."

That is true - a person always has the free will to reject truth. People do it all the time because they would rather follow their own wills. This is an innate truth expressed in Scriptures and experienced in life.

That truth is preconceived, residing within us & requiring the fallen attribute of foolishness to reject it.

Objective truth is not preconceived, it resides independent of our own feelings or opinions. The trick for one who rejects truth is inventing a convincing-enough paradigm to replace the truth that exists outside oneself and conscious bound us to consider.

Reality is a new term for truth. Stick to fewer terms so as not to introduce confusing ambiguities of nuance please, because we obviously have accepted & rejected different paragms that colour our definitions, a point we would do well to remember because it will allow us to agree to disagree.

Reality and truth are not necessarily the same thing. One's experiences of life do not necessarily explain objective truths. However, I will make an effort to simplify so as not to confuse.

My whole point on that is that the lack of contemporary corrolation by neutral &/or negative sources renders the Bible as a historicaly unreliable source on the issue of the existence of the person Jesus Christ.

That point is rendered false by my examples of Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar! The problem is that a person a priori has decided that Jesus must not exist - and so, they refuse any sort of witness that does not meet the unreasonably high standards they have artificially set - while ALLOWING Alexander and Julius to "exist" with a DIFFERENT set of historical standards.

If one beliefs Julius and Alexander existed, than one must use the same set of standards of ancient history and trust that Jesus is sufficiently verified to have existed. This is NOT a matter of faith, per sec, to the reasonably minded man. It is a matter of being unbiased and aware that one sets similar standards when analyzing matters of the ancient world.

It relates back to the OP in that (in my view) it is a matter of faith & doesn't or at least shouldn't, rely on the classical standards of critical analysis of hitorical evidence.

That's not how God worked through me initially, which is why I cannot agree with your thesis.

I said that in regards to historical evidences of the existence of Jesus, not in regards to how I know the Bible is the word of God.

Again, we go to the eyewitness and test if he is a reliable witness. We look at what he has written on verifiable matters. We can conclude reasonably that the Bible presents itself as the Word of God in the mind of the writers and its first readers. Now, were all these people deceived? Perhaps. Faith comes into play to a degree. However, I contend that the Church itself vouches for the inspiration of Scriptures. Naturally, if they are wrong, then the Bible is not the Word of God. That is not to say that faith alone brings us to believe that the Bible is God's Word. Historical research can give us a reasonable opinion on the matter.

I apologize if you're confusion is somehow my fault.
Keep the faith, brother. 8-)

Back at you.

Regards