Are forgeries inspired scripture?

OzSpen · Feb 10, 2016

radhead said:
No one has to prove that a book of supernatural claims is false or in error.

Fundamentalists are the only ones claiming that the Bible is without error.
So fundamentalists are the only ones who have to prove any of their claims.

It's time for you to read the OP.

OzSpen · Feb 10, 2016

HitchSlap said:
Who is the "early church?"

When was the church formed? The 'early church' relates to the same idea as 'early morning' when we understand the meaning of 'morning'.

OzSpen · Feb 10, 2016

HitchSlap said:
What many of the faithful don't understand, is that they can't hand wave the evidence, without first explaining why the reasons they consider these to not be forgeries, when it's the same criteria used to determine other historical forgeries as well.

That reads like an incoherent sentence to me. You can't even get the grammar correct, e.g. 'when it's the same criteria used'. It sounds rambling to me to try to sound sophisticated.

OzSpen · Feb 10, 2016

HitchSlap said:
Yet you have no qualms accepting this as fact.

Leading researcher, Dr Richard Bauckham (professor of NT, University of St Andrews, Scotland), has investigated this in Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Eerdmans 2006). Samuel Byrskog (professor of NT & hermeneutics, University of Gotenborg) has combed through the evidence and written his conclusions in Story as History - History as Story: The Gospel Tradition in the Context of Ancient Oral History (Brill Academic Publishers, Inc, 2002).

Their researched conclusions are radically different to your cynicism. There are good historical reasons for accepting the Gospels as reliable eyewitness testimony.

But as an atheist, you wouldn't want to consider such positive affirmations of the NT historical, Gospel evidence, would you?

Oz

OzSpen · Feb 10, 2016

HitchSlap said:
Yeah, but they're not good reasons.

Who said? HitchSlap said??? :scratch:

AV1611VET · Feb 10, 2016

OzSpen said:
When was the church formed? The 'early church' relates to the same idea as 'early morning' when we understand the meaning of 'morning'.

From your profile:

radhead · Feb 10, 2016

OzSpen said:
That reads like an incoherent sentence to me. You can't even get the grammar correct, e.g. 'when it's the same criteria used'. It sounds rambling to me to try to sound sophisticated.

That's convenient. I understand exactly what was being said. But your claim to not understanding an argument means that you don't have to consider it or respond to it.

Why do so many apologists play this way?

OzSpen · Feb 10, 2016

AV1611VET said:
From your profile:

Thank you my brother in Christ for reminding us again, 'I'd rather have Jesus' (and the version presented by the late Jim Reeves).

However, he's not the Jesus of fantasy, imagination or atheistic speculation. He's the Jesus who has always existed as a member of the Trinity but came in the flesh at the first Christmas, coming as a human being to die for the sins of all, including the sins of atheists. He is the Jesus revealed in the historically reliable Scriptures.

I've preached an written a series that I've made available on my homepage, 'Truth Challenge': Can you trust the Bible? Part 1

Blessings from the Brissy bloke,
Oz

OzSpen · Feb 10, 2016

radhead said:
That's convenient. I understand exactly what was being said. But your claim to not understanding an argument means that you don't have to consider it or respond to it.

Why do so many apologists play this way?

That is a false claim. One of the criteria for determining historicity is coherence. If one of the posts is not coherent, I need to address that. I did, but you as a humanist don't like the idea that I chose to raise the issue of coherence.

Unless your message is coherent, the message of truth is distorted.

AV1611VET · Feb 10, 2016

OzSpen said:
Thank you my brother in Christ for reminding us again, 'I'd rather have Jesus' (and the version presented by the late Jim Reeves).

You're welcome, brother!

OzSpen said:
However, he's not the Jesus of fantasy, imagination or atheistic speculation. He's the Jesus who has always existed as a member of the Trinity but came in the flesh at the first Christmas, coming as a human being to die for the sins of all, including the sins of atheists.

Yes, indeed!

I guess I'm in youtube mode right now.

Your comment reminds me of this:

God bless -- nice to see you posting here in CF!

HitchSlap · Feb 10, 2016

OzSpen said:
And you provide not one piece of evidence. None! Your personal assertion carries no more weight than any other assertion. I await your evidence and how you discern it is authentic or inauthentic material.

Scholars consider Ephesians to be a forgery for several reasons, including:
Different writing styles.
Written later than Paul's known epistles.
It was common during this time to write pseudonymously under one who had sway and authority.
There are other reasons, if you're interested.

Surely, this isn't news to you, is it?

HitchSlap · Feb 10, 2016

OzSpen said:
Please define 'Deiteropauline'.

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120425162142AADehOV

HitchSlap · Feb 10, 2016

OzSpen said:
Who said? HitchSlap said???

Go kiss yer mum, and go back to bed, mate.

Oncedeceived · Feb 10, 2016

HitchSlap said:
Yeah, but they're not good reasons.

Really? Again, you think your opinion trumps theirs? If the reasons for forgery were as good as you seem to think, all experts would agree.

Oncedeceived · Feb 10, 2016

cloudyday2 said:
^ Furthermo

There were many gospels and epistles in circulation. One example was the Gospel of Peter. Many people assumed that the Gospel of Peter was written or dictated by Peter, but the early Christians banned it as a forgery. How did they decide it was a forgery? They felt that it contained heresies, and the real Apostle Peter would not have written such a gospel. Orthodoxy of the teaching was their standard for authenticity. A forgery with an orthodox teaching could have easily slithered into the NT canon. Hebrews is another example. Nobody knew who wrote Hebrews, but they attributed it to the Apostle Paul. The people creating the NT canon had no certainty about the authors.

The people compiling the canon had well authorized documentation from hundreds of years of the material being circulated and by whom. There was concern over Peter early on and due to the lack of collaboration it was a time before it was included.

Oncedeceived · Feb 10, 2016

OzSpen said:
And you provide not one piece of evidence. None! Your personal assertion carries no more weight than any other assertion. I await your evidence and how you discern it is authentic or inauthentic material.

I agree. Assumptions, biases and opinion do not stand as evidence or proof of forgery.

HitchSlap · Feb 10, 2016

Oncedeceived said:
Really? Again, you think your opinion trumps theirs? If the reasons for forgery were as good as you seem to think, all experts would agree.

All critical experts do.

Again, you'll have to engage in special pleading as to why all other ancient literature should be evaluated any differently from the bible. As I've said before, arguments from incredulity don't impress.

HitchSlap · Feb 10, 2016

Oncedeceived said:
I agree. Assumptions, biases and opinion do not stand as evidence or proof of forgery.

Absolutely.

HitchSlap · Feb 10, 2016

Oncedeceived said:
Really? Again, you think your opinion trumps theirs? If the reasons for forgery were as good as you seem to think, all experts would agree.

I think the reasons critical scholars cite, trumps theirs. I'm not big on arguments from incredulity. I understand why you might be.

Wgw · Feb 10, 2016

cloudyday2 said:
Setting aside the question of which if any scriptures might be forgeries, would solid evidence that some NT book is a forgery imply that this book is NOT inspired scripture? If you found out that Slippery Sam from Siam wrote one of the NT books as a practical joke, would you tear that book out of your bible in disgust, or would you be amazed that God can inspire scriptures - even when the writer is not aware that he/she is part of God's plan?

I wouldn't find that out, because St. Athanasius was careful. Those works of dubious apostolicity, like 1 Barnabas, were omitted. As for modern scholars who think they know more than the Fathers on what St. Paul did or did not write, I consider this pure arrogation on their part.

Are forgeries inspired scripture?

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Contributor

Regular Member

Regular Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

PROUDLY PRIMATE

PROUDLY PRIMATE

PROUDLY PRIMATE

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

PROUDLY PRIMATE

PROUDLY PRIMATE

PROUDLY PRIMATE

Pray For Brussels!

Similar threads