Sacred Scriptures

[razeontherock]

^ ^ And this isn't even the tip of the iceberg of the text itself proving it is Divinely inspired. This is enough to show the folly of dissing how the Bible has been preserved though.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

I can’t answer your question with just a couple of words, so bear with my ramblings.

I accept Christianity because I have taken time to look at as much as I can about the Bible and Christianity and have come to the conclusion that Christianity must be true. Regarding the Bible, it wasn’t put together in secret; but rather it was a very public process open to scrutiny. As a Christian I welcome the most severe scrutiny, because I know the Bible can stand up to it.

Let me list some reasons:

Perhaps the strongest evidence is that the Bible which has been so universally attacked has survived and attained a place of such renown is alone a miracle that testifies to its supernatural origin.

Next consider the unity of the Bible from three aspects – (i) diversity of authors, (ii) details of the wording, and (iii) the doctrine of the writings.

(i) diversity of authors: Who are the authors? Well, forty men from all walks of life including kings, peasants, philosophers, fishermen, tax collectors, poets, musician, physicians, teachers, statesmen, lawyers and shepherds. Their writings took place over the course of some 1500 years on three continents, and in three different languages. These individual writers, at the time of writing, had no idea that their message would eventually be incorporated into such a Book.
​

Yet, amazingly we see the next two points

(ii) details of the wording; Here I want to quote from the book CHRISTIAN FOUNDATIONS by Dr. Ian Richard Kyle Paisley

“For example, take the word "sweat" as it occurs in the Bible. It is mentioned only three times:
(1) Genesis 3:19-- "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground."

(2) Ezekiel 44:18-- "They shall have linen bonnets upon their heads, and shall have linen breeches upon their loins; they shall not gird themselves with any thing that causeth sweat."

(3) Luke 22:44-- "And being in an agony He prayed more earnestly: and His sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground."

Notice the complete symbolic and doctrinal harmony and symmetry. In Genesis 3:19 "sweat" is part of the curse of sin. In Ezekiel 44:18, no garments which would cause "sweat" were to be worn by the priests in the service of the sanctuary. This service was holy, hence no symbol of sin was permitted even in the priest's garment. Again, these priests were typical of the sinless One Who alone could be our Great High Priest. In Luke 22:44 He Who was made sin was identified with the curse, and therefore was bathed in the bloody "sweat" of Gethsemane's passion and agony. Think a moment of the fact that Ezekiel wrote about 1000 years after Moses, and Luke about 500 years after Ezekiel. Though there could be absolutely no collusion, yet there is absolutely no collision. In view of this we can assert that no artful conniver could devise such unity. The Power behind such harmony in detail is surely divine. Many such examples of profound unanimity could be given, but this one is sufficient to affirm the unity of the Bible as manifested in the details of its wording.”

​

Now the final point regarding the unity of the Bible:

(iii) the doctrine of the writings:

The Doctrine of the Bible is simply, “Jesus Christ and Him Crucified.” The Old Testament says that Christ is coming and it tells how he is coming; in the Gospels, we have found Him; the Epistles tell us more about Him; and the book of Revelation tells us He is coming again.

More over, the subject of the Bible is Christ; the object of the Bible is Christ; its symbols symbolize Christ; its types typify Christ; its predictions predict Christ; its gospels glorify Christ; and its epistles expound Christ.

As you read the Bible in its entirety this unity is readily apparent.
​

I will cover one more here and that is the record of the historical manuscripts support the accuracy of today’s Bible translations. The Arabic Bible Outreach Ministry listed the following as support of this point.

• The Septuagint Version which Batlimus Philadephos asked 70 Jewish scholars to translate the Old Testament from the Hebrew to the Greek language in 285 B. C. This translation was popular before the birth of Christ and is still in existence today. This is a very clear evidence that the Old Testament is still in tact and was not tampered with.

• The Sinai Manuscript It was found by scholar Chandorf in Saint Catherine’s Convent at the bottom of Mount Sinai in Egypt. It goes back to the 4th century A.D. and it is kept at the British Museum in London, England.

• The Vatican Manuscript, This edition was copied by an order of King Constantine, and it dates back to 328 A. D. It is kept now in the Vatican Library in Rome. This copy contains the Old and the New Testament.

• The Ephraim Manuscript, It dates back to 450 A.D. and it is kept in the National House of Books in Paris, France.

• The Qumran Scrolls. Found in 1947 by a Jordanian shepherd boy in one of the caves on the hills of Qumran, Jordan a complete manuscript of the book of Isaiah written in Hebrew with other books of the Old Testament except the book of Esther. One of the famous archeologists Dr Albright gave the date of its writing period a few hundred years before Christ.

• The Alexandria Manuscript dated 400 AD. This manuscript contains the entire Bible, and it is kept in the British Museum.

• The Bezae Manuscript (450 AD) This manuscript contains the four gospels, the book of Acts and it is written in the Greek and the Latin languages and is kept in Cambridge, England

There are many other areas that support my belief in the Bible and Christianity, some more controversial than others. These include prophecies concerning Christ, its scientific accuracy, the Testimony of the Quran, and that many influential people in the world believe it.

Why do scholars agree that the books of Colossians, Ephesians, 1/2 Timothy and Titus are pseudepigraphical?

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

^ ^ And this isn't even the tip of the iceberg of the text itself proving it is Divinely inspired. This is enough to show the folly of dissing how the Bible has been preserved though.

You've been selective in your sources then, IMO.

 

[Deaver]

Why do scholars agree that the books of Colossians, Ephesians, 1/2 Timothy and Titus are pseudepigraphical?

Some (not all) may agree to argue the authorship of some Christian writings, however that argument does not take away from the inspired authorship of the Bible nor does it take away from the message of the Bible.

 

[Deaver]

You've been selective in your sources then, IMO.

Not to butt in, however IMHO, we all have a bias that we bring to this discussion. I respect most everyone's opinion but disagree with some, as I am sure you do.

 

[smaneck]

You mentioned a "unity of will", Theosis is more than that. It is about becoming a sharer in God's very Deity and Divinity.

-CryptoLutheran

But that's what pantheism is, claiming we are all a part of God's deity.

 

[smaneck]

Several places. Off the top of my head:

Luke 23:31 For if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry?"

Mat 24:28 For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together."

I can't find either of those passages in the Book of Enoch and I have a very good search program for that text.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Not to butt in, however IMHO, we all have a bias that we bring to this discussion. I respect most everyone's opinion but disagree with some, as I am sure you do.

Yes, I understand personal bias. I'm asking if you know why scholars consider the books (Colossian, Ephesians, 1/2 Timothy and Titus) to not be written by Paul, but by someone claiming to be Paul many decades later?

 

[smaneck]

Why do scholars agree that the books of Colossians, Ephesians, 1/2 Timothy and Titus are pseudepigraphical?

There are a couple of reasons, the first is the fact that the writing style does not coincide with those epistles we know to be Pauline. The applies more to Timothy and Titus. Those works reflect a level a church organization which didn't exist until the second century.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

There are a couple of reasons, the first is the fact that the writing style does not coincide with those epistles we know to be Pauline. The applies more to Timothy and Titus. Those works reflect a level a church organization which didn't exist until the second century.

This is correct. These books contain completely different syntax, themes, and structure compared to the books that all scholars agree were actually written by Paul. To claim that the author was one in the same, would be to confuse Twain with say, Dickens.

 

[Deaver]

Yes, I understand personal bias. I'm asking if you know why scholars consider the books (Colossian, Ephesians, 1/2 Timothy and Titus) to not be written by Paul, but by someone claiming to be Paul many decades later?

No, I don't except that perhaps they did not meet the criteria most scholars use to validate authorship. However, it is worth mentioning that pseudepigraphy was a commonly accepted practice in the ancient world, unless it was recognized as a deliberate deception.

Even when we consider this, those same scholars (at least that I know of) do not conclude that it takes away from the message of the Bible.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

No, I don't except that perhaps they did not meet the criteria most scholars use to validate authorship. However, it is worth mentioning that pseudepigraphy was a commonly accepted practice in the ancient world, unless it was recognized as a deliberate deception.

Even when we consider this, those same scholars (at least that I know of) do not conclude that it takes away from the message of the Bible.

So we've established that at least some books are forgeries.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

So we've established that at least some books are forgeries.

"Forgery" implies a desire to deceive, yet the ancient concept of authorship bore little resemblance to our current obsessions with "intellectual property". It was not altogether unheard of for pupils to attribute their writings to their teacher, for example.

So yes, it's pretty clear that the pastoral epistles weren't written by Paul, but it wasn't fraud.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Even when we consider this, those same scholars (at least that I know of) do not conclude that it takes away from the message of the Bible.

I agree that the message of the Bible is not tied to its historicity (or lack of the same): that's the one thing that people these days fail to understand about the nature of myth. A tale can be true without being factual - very much so.

 

[Drunk On Love]

It was not altogether unheard of for pupils to attribute their writings to their teacher, for example.

I believe it was actually considered a sign of humility to do so.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

"Forgery" implies a desire to deceive, yet the ancient concept of authorship bore little resemblance to our current obsessions with "intellectual property". It was not altogether unheard of for pupils to attribute their writings to their teacher, for example.

So yes, it's pretty clear that the pastoral epistles weren't written by Paul, but it wasn't fraud.

What other reason would there be for a forgery? There is no reason to write in the name of Paul, unless of course, by using his name your letter might carry more weight and influence? How would we determine the intent of the forger?

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

What other reason would there be for a forgery?

What part of "it's not a forgery, it's a pseudepigraph" was it that you did not understand?

The concept of the author as the sole source (and owner) of a text didn't fully develop until the early modern era, and the notion of intellectual property is even younger than that, dating back no further than approximately 200 years.

Accordingly, attributing a text to another author was not thought of as an infringement upon somebody else's property, but could stem from many different reasons: pupils feeling that the praise for what they composed ought to belong to their teachers, not to them. Poets wanting to add to an extant literary tradition, and so on and so forth.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

What part of "it's not a forgery, it's a pseudepigraph" was it that you did not understand?

The concept of the author as the sole source (and owner) of a text didn't fully develop until the early modern era, and the notion of intellectual property is even younger than that, dating back no further than approximately 200 years.

Accordingly, attributing a text to another author was not thought of as an infringement upon somebody else's property, but could stem from many different reasons: pupils feeling that the praise for what they composed ought to belong to their teachers, not to them. Poets wanting to add to an extant literary tradition, and so on and so forth.

Writing a book that explicitly claims to be written by Paul, but was not, is by definition forgery. The books we are talking about were written by people who lied about their identity in order to deceive their readers into thinking that they were someone they were not. Even authors in antiquity refer to falsely inscribed writings as "illegitimate children."

 

[dazed]

"Forgery" implies a desire to deceive, yet the ancient concept of authorship bore little resemblance to our current obsessions with "intellectual property". It was not altogether unheard of for pupils to attribute their writings to their teacher, for example.

So yes, it's pretty clear that the pastoral epistles weren't written by Paul, but it wasn't fraud.

I guess these inspired writers never heard of pseudonyms?

 

[ViaCrucis]

"Forgery" implies a desire to deceive, yet the ancient concept of authorship bore little resemblance to our current obsessions with "intellectual property". It was not altogether unheard of for pupils to attribute their writings to their teacher, for example.

So yes, it's pretty clear that the pastoral epistles weren't written by Paul, but it wasn't fraud.

^This.

-CryptoLutheran