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

[Guest]

francis: 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.

That is completely beside the point that classical standards for critical analysis depend upon a variety of sources and the only other source is a sparing mention by Josephus that has been rendered suspect in origen. I'm thru wandering off on this tangent with you.

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.

It is the truth in it's entirety for myself.
If your belief that the Bible is the word of God has an origin different than grace thru faith, so be it, but don't drag me along with you on that point. 8-)

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.

What other "historical" works even mention Jesus?

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?

All of which amounts to my point, we "know" by faith.

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.

They are not unbiased accounts, and their contents are not mentioned by any neutral or negative sources. Your biased standard of "best" and "reliable" is showing.

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.

To quote Tonto when the Lone Ranger told him "we" are in trouble with hostile Indians..."What do you mean "WE", paleface?" My math is showing an equivalency of faith content because of the lack of neutral or negative sources.

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.

[/quote]
You're totaly wrong, and you can't even see your self contradiction. I'm thru wasting my time with this.

We disagree, that's all.
No hard feelin's. 8-)

 

[francisdesales]

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.

That is completely beside the point that classical standards for critical analysis depend upon a variety of sources and the only other source is a sparing mention by Josephus that has been rendered suspect in origen. I'm thru wandering off on this tangent with you.

Huh??? This is completely besides the point? I don't think you understand my point, to begin with. My point is that some sources are better than others. Have you not fathomed that yet? Eyewitness accounts are universally accepted as better sources, pure and simple. Do you have an issue with that? I have said nothing about "variety of sources"!!!

The fact remains that the individual Gospels, besides being Scriptures, are EYEWITNESS ACCONTS (two are first-hand, two are second-handed). This stuff about Josephus is ridiculous. The Gospel accounts THEMSELVES are historical works - and I as an historian can view them as such BEFORE determining they are the Word of God.

Now, the historian accepts the gospel of Matthew for what it is - a historical record written in a narrative form, recounting the life and teachings of a man named Jesus of Nazareth. This man calls upon an inner body of followers, apostles. This man argues with the religious authorities of the time. This man is eventually killed by the religious authorities, brought up under charges and executed by the Roman occupying forces.

Don't tell me that the only historical records we have of Jesus are from Josephus. That is just pointing out to me your ignorance in historical research...

The gospels are legitimate historical resources in of themselves - WITHOUT even considering their theological bent. Until something impinges upon the reliability of these sources, they REMAIN (2 of them) eyewitness accounts - BETTER THAN JOSEPHUS...

It is the truth in it's entirety for myself.

If your belief that the Bible is the word of God has an origin different than grace thru faith, so be it, but don't drag me along with you on that point. 8-)

You are quite stubborn, aren't you. Anyone who does not submit to your partial truths as being in "entirety" is condemned to be "dragged down" to who knows where... Forgive me for stating this again, but "your" partial truth doesn't make it total truth for anyone. Once you begin to understand my point of view stated over and over again, you may see that the gospels THEMSELVES are eyewitness accounts - and BETTER sources, historically speaking using historical standards. Thus, one doesn't require FAITH ALONE to think that the Bible is the Word of God. Historically speaking, we can begin to come to that conclusion, although not completly.

Thus, your thesis "we believe that the bible is the Word of God is based upon faith alone" is false.

What other "historical" works even mention Jesus?

Have you not read the 27 independent books that have been compiled some 350 years later into the Bible??? The Acts of the Apostles is a historical work. Have you not read it? :-?

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?

All of which amounts to my point, we "know" by faith.

Military historians do not have "faith" that Alexander defeated Darius at Arbela. They KNOW with an acceptable certainty...

Your definition of faith implies we cannot know anything that relies on the word of another.

In life, Rick, we just "know" certain things are so and don't question them. We have "sufficient" knowledge to accept certain things are true. I KONW that President Washington was the first president of the US. Is that REALLY an act of faith, or does the evidence appear to be "sufficient" to allow a person to accept this as a fact?

I do not care to delve into the ridiculous realm of philosophy and wonder whether I exist or whether you exist or not. I accept historical research for what it is - and until another theory calls into question a previous paradigm that has better sources, I'll KNOW that Alexander the Great existed. I KNOW that Jesus of Nazareth existed. These are not acts of faith.

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.

They are not unbiased accounts, and their contents are not mentioned by any neutral or negative sources. Your biased standard of "best" and "reliable" is showing.

There is no such thing as an unbiased account in the ancient world. Have you ever heard of "the victor writes history"??? As a historian, we can come to accept some bias, some coloring of the story to favor one's point of view.

We read the story of Arbela - and have serious doubt of the numbers expressed - but do we doubt the fact that a battle occured and who won???

Can anyone say that the Gospels INVENT the charecter of Jesus? There is absolutely no evidence of 27 books independently inventing Jesus. (remember, they were written independent of each other by different authors...)

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.

You're totaly wrong, and you can't even see your self contradiction. I'm thru wasting my time with this.

In other words, "I don't want to admit that I am wrong, so I am taking my ball and going home..." :wink:

Whether you want to admit it or not, the individual books of the bible WERE and ARE historical records of the existence of Jesus. This notion that only Josephus even mentions Jesus is ridiculous and shows you know nothing about historical research.

No hard feelings about you being wrong...

Regards

 

[Catholic Crusader]

.

Holy Cow. I'm saving that on my hard drive.

 

[Guest]

In other words, "I don't want to admit that I am wrong, so I am taking my ball and going home..."
_________Awww, and I didn't even get a chance to play :_____Actually I got to serve a couple of times, just no return volleys yet.

 

[Guest]

The assertion that the books in the the Bible represent a variety of unbiased historical sources about Jesus is patently absurd.
villify me for that at your pleasure, gentlemen.

Dear Dogma, I'm not going to waste my time addressing the volume of errors in your cut & paste post. I discredited their false premise of idolatry of authority figures, & that is sufficient.
Belittle me until you are fully gratified.

 

[Veritas]

Are you sure you guys aren't arguing over a misunderstanding? Rick, I'm not sure if francis is saying that the Gospels are unbiased. (when you think about it, everything is going to have a bias or nothing would be said at all). And francis, maybe the "faith alone" is being misunderstood here.... (unless I'm misunderstanding it)

I understand from your quote before francis...

It (the bible) may convince us intellectually, but not in the heart where transformation takes place. I know this from personal experience. I read and read for months, convinced in time that the Church was as she said. However, it didn't move me, of itself, to love from the heart. I felt that and knew it. So I began to pray the prayer of begging for more faith - and my prayers were answered. At that point, I began to really begin to throw off the arrogant and proud self. (most of it, anyway!)

I wouldn't expurge reason either, and I'm not sure "faith alone" is being used properly here. Can we agree that without faith and just thinking the Bible is "intellectual convincing" would do no good? We must be "transformed" as you've said. So in this respect, faith is primary.

Because I think the Bible is "intellectual convincing", but there are plenty of historians out there, who Rick is (I think) alluding to, that remain skeptical despite that fact. Faith must enter in to these people... right?

 

[francisdesales]

The assertion that the books in the the Bible represent a variety of unbiased historical sources about Jesus is patently absurd.

Yes, it is ...

And yet again, I never said that.

I even gave you examples from military history (numbers at Arbela) as well as the gospels (that Jesus had an inner group of follwers, fought against the religious authorities, and was killed by the Romans at the behest of the Jews).

I clearly said that there is no such thing as an unbiased historical account, esp. in ancient history. But that does not deter historians from some basic facts that are impeachable by the historian WITHOUT an a priori bias against what these writings state.

Jesus existed. That is beyond doubt with the VAST historical records that we have. The sources that indicate this are BETTER sources than those that witnessed Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar. The idea that "because the gospels are biased, they are totally unreliable" is laughable in historical research. We are not speaking about theology, we are speaking of history.

As I have labored to show you, there are better sources - all are not the same. I have also shown you that one can BEGIN to conclude that the Bible is the Word of God based on "merely" historical analysis. Your thesis is wrong - and history does show that the existence of Jesus IS historically proven.

villify me for that at your pleasure, gentlemen.

[/quote]

No one is villifying you. Just pointing out that you are wrong.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Because I think the Bible is "intellectual convincing", but there are plenty of historians out there, who Rick is (I think) alluding to, that remain skeptical despite that fact. Faith must enter in to these people... right?

They are dishonest "historians" with a theological predisposition. Atheist historians MUST discount ALL writings that mention Jesus. Unfortunately for them, this shows their incredible lack of consistency. Again, I pointed out that we have NO eyewitness accounts that are extant of Alexander the Great. The writings we have on him supposedly are written BASED on other historians who did know him. Yet, we have two different sets of writings that claim to be eyewitnesses of Jesus...

Must I further explain the different set of standards that such philosophically-challenged men erect? By setting different standards for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, (vs. Alexander the Great), they have removed any claim to their being unbiased and proper historians. Allowing one's philosophy to interfere with the data is poor history. The data clearly shows a lot about someone named Jesus of Nazareth. Now, whether one believes He was the Son of God and rose from the dead, that is another story that relies more on faith - but not altogether devoid of historical study.

Regards

 

[Scott1]

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.

I don't have a problem with this.... I personally believe that there are "converging and convincing arguments", which allow me to attain certainty about the "truth" of the Bible.... of which faith has a large part.

Peace,
S

 

[francisdesales]

I personally believe that there are "converging and convincing arguments", which allow me to attain certainty about the "truth" of the Bible.... of which faith has a large part.

And thus, faith alone is not the only factor in coming to know the Bible is the Word of God...

I stress this from personal experience.

Regards

 

[Scott1]

And thus, faith alone is not the only factor in coming to know the Bible is the Word of God...

I stress this from personal experience.

Well... I must admit... I have come to my current state of belief over the course of a few years... as you know, history is important to me, so I do appreciate the cultural/historical aspect of the Word of God.

.... but when I originally came to accept Christ in my life, my belief in the Bible as the Word of God was based SOLELY on faith.

Is that a bad thing?

What's wrong with simple trust?

Thanks,
S

 

[Veritas]

Kids readily trust....

But Jesus called the children to him and said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it." Luke 18:16-17

 

[francisdesales]

And thus, faith alone is not the only factor in coming to know the Bible is the Word of God...

I stress this from personal experience.

Well... I must admit... I have come to my current state of belief over the course of a few years... as you know, history is important to me, so I do appreciate the cultural/historical aspect of the Word of God.

.... but when I originally came to accept Christ in my life, my belief in the Bible as the Word of God was based SOLELY on faith.

Is that a bad thing?

What's wrong with simple trust?

There is nothing wrong with your belief in the Bible as the Word of God based solely upon faith. The point I am making is that it is not NECESSARY to make that claim. Nor is it required to state that. A person well-versed in historical research can come to converging evidence that suggests the same. Not completely - but it gets one in the right direction.

Mr. Otto suggested that one can know Jesus existed ONLY by faith and that Josephus is the only historical record of His existence. I have debunked that idea thoroughly. Historical research, for example, shows that Jesus existed. That Jesus created an inner group of followers that he revealed other items. That this Jesus established a community of followers. That this Jesus disagreed with the Jewish religious authorities. That this Jesus was crucified by the Romans.

None of that REQUIRES faith to know. It is open to ANY historical researcher, including atheists, Hindus, and Muslims.

Again, this was my particular path. Is that a bad thing?

Regards

 

[Veritas]

.... but when I originally came to accept Christ in my life, my belief in the Bible as the Word of God was based SOLELY on faith.

Is that a bad thing?

...A person well-versed in historical research can come to converging evidence that suggests the same. Not completely - but it gets one in the right direction....

...Historical research, for example, shows that Jesus existed. That Jesus created an inner group of followers that he revealed other items. That this Jesus established a community of followers. That this Jesus disagreed with the Jewish religious authorities. That this Jesus was crucified by the Romans.

None of that REQUIRES faith to know. It is open to ANY historical researcher, including atheists, Hindus, and Muslims.

Again, this was my particular path. Is that a bad thing?

heh... I guess you guys should be asking God (probably have already) ...but I'd guess no.. God's okay with it. :wink:

 

[Guest]

I previously addressed these issues in this earlier post which has pretty much gone unnoticed, The first half is "cut & paste" from catholic encyclopedia (crucial to the arguements)but the second half is all mine and correct me if I'm wrong but I believe it affirms everything being posted by everyone except Rick Otto who still hasn't replied to it effectively (imo)______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._______Some may consider this a gratuitous bump....It is!!!! I don't have the seemingly endless resources of time some others appear to have around here. So when I'm called out (like I was) I try to effectively respond with a well thought out reply and I would expect my challenger to do the same in reciprocation. I'm not saying you have to agree with me, but if for example a post like this one is presented and my challenger chooses to take out only one portion of one sentence and reply with one sentence that (iho) nullifies the validity of all of mine, I will not interact with that individual in the future. I will give Mr. Otto 1 last chance to re-read, reflect and effectively reply to my post with a well thought out response or it will be my last communication with him_____seeking effective communication in peace; Deardogma

 

[Guest]

"Rick Otto; "The assertion that the books in the the Bible represent a variety of unbiased historical sources about Jesus is patently absurd.

Francis replies: "Yes, it is ...And yet again, I never said that.

Frankly, after I said; "What other "historical" works even mention Jesus?"
You said:

"Have you not read the 27 independent books that have been compiled some 350 years later into the Bible??? The Acts of the Apostles is a historical work.

Francis: "No one is villifying you. Just pointing out that you are wrong"

.
Francis previously said;

"You are quite stubborn,..."

and;

"In other words, "I don't want to admit that I am wrong, so I am taking my ball and going home..."

Victimize someone else with your sophmoric railing. I don't appreciate you peeing on my leg & trying to tell me it's raining.

 

[francisdesales]

To try to simply this conversation, I have made my words to Rick in red, his responses in blue...

"The assertion that the books in the the Bible represent a variety of unbiased historical sources about Jesus is patently absurd.

"Yes, it is ...And yet again, I never said that.

Frankly, after I said; "What other "historical" works even mention Jesus?"

"Have you not read the 27 independent books that have been compiled some 350 years later into the Bible??? The Acts of the Apostles is a historical work.

That's it? That is where I talk about a "variety of unbiased historical sources about Jesus"?

Mentioning the New Testament writings (since you CLAIMED NO ONE ELSE BUT JOSEPHUS WROTE ABOUT JESUS) now suddenly becomes an assertion of unbiased historical sources???

Rick, you are desperately trying to save face here. Your argument holds no water.

Mentioning that the various writings of the New Testament VERIFY Christ's existence does not in ANY way say that they are unbiased! You are jumping to conclusions that I never even imply. Of course the NT writers were biased - but that doesn't mean we toss them out when considering their historical value!!!

I have repeated several times that there are no unbiased historical sources from the ancient world. But that does not mean we toss out ALL historical writings! If we did that, Rick, I guess Alexander the Great didn't exist. Anyone who has read "Arrian - the campaigns of Alexander", for example, will KNOW that Arrian was quite biased towards Alexander. The numbers he gives for the Persians is doubtful, they are so inflated, for example. But does this mean his ENTIRE account is false? Does the bias of someone eliminate ALL testimony?

And you claim Josephus was not biased? Please. A captured Jewish general in the pay of the Romans writing about the Jewish insurrection was not biased??? :P :P

Your only source must be then tossed out, by your standards...

Let's be consistent. Let's be honest. While the writings of the New Testament are no doubt theologically biased, historically speaking, they give what historians would consider reliable testimony to some basic facts. Namely, that Jesus of Nazareth existed. The only one who would deny that is someone a priori philosophically predisposed to REFUSE TO ACCEPT THE POSSIBILITY that He existed. Frankly, this is terrible history...

End of story. Just admit you made a mistake and move on.

Victimize someone else with your sophmoric railing. I don't appreciate you peeing on my leg & trying to tell me it's raining.

You aren't being "victimized". Drop the martyr complex - it just doesn't work for someone with the hubris you are displaying here. Peeing on your leg? Yea, you suffer so much...

Your CONTINUED denial to accept your mistake is indicative of your stubborness. While you may not like to be proven wrong, your stubborness is quite obvious to anyone reading these posts but yourself.

Be that as it may, there is no "victimization" going on here. You have earned it and more.

Regards

 

[Guest]

You called me stubborn & likened me to an angry child. That is victimization. At least own up to it even if your unwilling to apologize for it.
I didn't say or mean to imply Josephus wasn't biased. I refer you yet again to the classical standards for critical analysis, specificaly the need for a variety of approximately contemporary sources. When it is the Bible at issue, all the books in the bible do not comprise a variety, they comprise the same source in question.

You got your coloring wrong. It was I who said
"Frankly, after I said; "What other "historical" works even mention Jesus?"
Not you.
Not to pick nits, but your lack of attention to detail is endemic to your entire posting style on this thread.

AS I said before, bias in the sources isn't enough to dismiss extra-biblical sources as a way to verify the factual existence of Jesus. Roman records of His trial &/or execution would be acceptable according to the standard of variety.

All of this is obviously beside the point of your real contention with me.
It is you who are desperate to save face, as it is you who has a facade to maintain in the extra-biblical traditions of your supremacist sect.
Grow up, lose your religion, & get a life,... an eternal one.

 

[Veritas]

I should reply to this francis... I meant to before and got a bit sidetracked...

They are dishonest "historians" with a theological predisposition. Atheist historians MUST discount ALL writings that mention Jesus. Unfortunately for them, this shows their incredible lack of consistency. Again, I pointed out that we have NO eyewitness accounts that are extant of Alexander the Great. The writings we have on him supposedly are written BASED on other historians who did know him. Yet, we have two different sets of writings that claim to be eyewitnesses of Jesus...

Must I further explain the different set of standards that such philosophically-challenged men erect? By setting different standards for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, (vs. Alexander the Great), they have removed any claim to their being unbiased and proper historians. Allowing one's philosophy to interfere with the data is poor history. The data clearly shows a lot about someone named Jesus of Nazareth. Now, whether one believes He was the Son of God and rose from the dead, that is another story that relies more on faith - but not altogether devoid of historical study.

No No.. I believe you have a very good point. I'm aware of this myself - the different standards used. And I'd certainly point that out to someone if I'd happen to be witnessing. I do agree its a wonderful arguement for the Christian faith.

 

[stovebolts]

A firm reminder.

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=9219

5 - Respect each other's opinions. Address issues, not persons or personalities.

6 - No Bashing of other members. Give other members the respect you would want them to give yourself.