Article: what is wrong the substitutionary theory of atonement.

[sentipente]

I happen to believe, and can show, that all information is inspired.

 

[Adventtruth]

sure... first problem, we don't have any original manuscripts or source documents, we have copies of copies. Who is to say that the copies we have were copied without additional material included? Those who have been studying these copies have suggested that there is a strong likelihood that additional material was included. Second problem, if material has been added, is the added material also inspired? I don't think it would be. Third problem, if the information has been embellished or borrowed from other cultures does it still mean it is inspired? Those are some that stick out off the top of my head...

What do you think of the following concerning the NT:

A common misconception is that the text of the Bible has not come down to us the way in which it was originally written. Accusations abound of zealous monks changing the biblical text throughout Church history. This issue is of the utmost importance, since an altered text would do grave damage to the credibility of the story.
As F. F. Bruce says, “The historical ‘once-for-all-ness’ of Christianity which distinguishes it from those religious and philosophical systems, which are not specially related to any particular time, makes the reliability of the writings which purport to record this revelation a question of first-rate importance” (The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? p. 8).
Fortunately, the problem is not a lack of evidence. There are three different types of evidence that are to be used in evaluating the New Testament text. These are the Greek manuscripts, the various versions in which the New Testament is translated, and the writings of the Church fathers.
The New Testament was originally composed in the Greek language. There are approximately 5,500 copies in existence that contain all or part of the New Testament. Although we do not possess the originals, copies exist from a very early date.
The New Testament was written from about a.d. 50 to a.d. 90. The earliest fragment (p. 52) dates about a.d. 120, with about fifty other fragments dating within 150–200 years from the time of composition.
Two major manuscripts, Codex Vaticanus (a.d. 325) and Codex Sinaiticus (a.d. 350), a complete copy, date within 250 years of the time of composition. This may seem like a long time span, but it is minimal compared to most ancient works.
The earliest copy of Caesar’s The Gallic Wars dates 1,000 years after it was written, and the first complete copy of the Odyssey by Homer dates 2,200 years after it was written. When the interval between the writing of the New Testament and earliest copies is compared to other ancient works, the New Testament proves to be much closer to the time of the original.
The 5,500 copies are far and away the most we have of any ancient work. Many ancient writings have been transmitted to us by only a handful of manuscripts (Catullus—three copies; the earliest one is 1,600 years after he wrote; Herodotus—eight copies and 1,300 years).
Not only do the New Testament documents have more manuscript evidence and close time interval between the writing and earliest copy, but they were also translated into several other languages at an early date. Translation of a document into another language was rare in the ancient world, so this is an added plus for the New Testament.
The number of copies of the versions is in excess of 18,000, with possibly as many as 25,000. This is further evidence that helps us establish the New Testament text.
Even if we did not possess the 5,500 Greek manuscripts or the 18,000 copies of the versions, the text of the New Testament could still be reproduced within 250 years from its composition. How? By the writings of the early Christians. In commentaries, letters, etc., these ancient writers quote the biblical text, thus giving us another witness to the text of the New Testament.
John Burgon has catalogued more than 86,000 citations by the early church fathers who cite different parts of the New Testament. Thus we observe that there is so much more evidence for the reliability of the New Testament text than any other comparable writings in the ancient world.
F. F. Bruce makes the following observation: “The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which no one dreams of questioning.”
He also states, “And if the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt” (The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? p. 15).
Sir Frederic Kenyon, former director and principal librarian of the British Museum, was one of the foremost experts on ancient manuscripts and their authority. Shortly before his death, he wrote this concerning the New Testament:
“The interval between the dates of original composition (of the New Testament) and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established” (The Bible and Archaeology, pp. 288-89).​

http://christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=47947892#_ftn1


AThttp://christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=47947892#_ftnref1

 

[StormyOne]

I think it is an apologist's answer to the question "is the NT inspired." The problem is the explanation does not address authorship.... Did Paul really write Hebrews? Scholarship now is saying no he did not.... Did Matthew write Matthew? It is known that Peter didn't write Peter, Mark did... so my points remain, who really authored these various books if the people named did not.... Nor does it adequately address insertions of material while it was being copied or transcribed..... so for me it is not definitive proof of anything.... but again, we will read and believe those whose views align with ours....

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

I happen to believe, and can show, that all information is inspired.

This is probably the meaning intended in 2 Tim. you notice in the text it covers a wide variety of ways the inspiration of Scriptures works. Reproof, training in righteousness etc. how the information is useful. In other words the inspiration is not in the words but in how useful the information is to the one who reads it for building them up and leading to God.

2 Tim 3:14 NASB: You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

 

[Adventtruth]

I think it is an apologist's answer to the question "is the NT inspired."

Its a reply to the question..."Has the New Testament been changed sence its been copied and recopied through out history?

The problem is the explanation does not address authorship....

Its not dealing with authorship.

Did Paul really write Hebrews? Scholarship now is saying no he did not....

No I am of the opinion that Paul did not write Hebrews. All one has to do is compare the two styles of writting and the difference in perspectives.

Did Matthew write Matthew? It is known that Peter didn't write Peter, Mark did...

Agreed

so my points remain, who really authored these various books if the people named did not

So the insperation of God that is attached means nothing to you?

.... Nor does it adequately address insertions of material while it was being copied or transcribed..... so for me it is not definitive proof of anything....

So you don't subscribe to Heb 11:1 I suppose?

but again, we will read and believe those whose views align with ours....

And where does the view we believe about matters of religion begin???? With us, or an outside source?


AT

 

[StormyOne]

Its a reply to the question..."Has the New Testament been changed sence its been copied and recopied through out history?

Its not dealing with authorship.

and that is the weakness in the explanation.... if he suggests that nothing has been changed, then that would mean from its beginning the NT was compiled with fraudulent material.....

No I am of the opinion that Paul did not write Hebrews. All one has to do is compare the two styles of writting and the difference in perspectives.

yep there are significant differences yet people still pretend that Paul wrote it..... what is that called? Denial or lying, take your pick....

So the insperation of God that is attached means nothing to you?

anyone can say they are inspired by God, their saying it does not make it so....

So you don't subscribe to Heb 11:1 I suppose?

God asks us to have faith in him based on our experience with him... it is because of what he has done that I can have faith that he will do what he said he will do....

And where does the view we believe about matters of religion begin???? With us, or an outside source?

AT

It should begin with our belief in the Creator....

 

[JonMiller]

Not everything is inspired because some things directly oppose eachother or are proven to be wrong. We don't even need to get into religion to know this.

I don't see how the authorship of different books makes any difference in regards to whether they are inspired or not.

If the Bible isn't inspired, then it shouldn't be treated any differently then Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.

JM

 

[JonMiller]

Finally, most of the theories that are popular in critical circles have that the Bible was compiled in a very different process then is presented over the course of a couple hundred years much later then it is presented as. Even more seriously, in the case of the NT that events were made up and presented as fact that would have occured in the lifetime of the audience. And that after this time of construction, that it basically didn't change in ~2000 years (a bit more for the OT, a bit less for the NT).

This doesn't seem a very reasonable hypothesis. You can't go back as far as there is evidence, say that something didn't change in all that time, and then as soon as evidence is missing say that it was created then (contrary to what was beleived). Especially when it is reasonable to beleive that the evidence would be missing (it takes quite a bit to keep the books from BC around until today).

JM

 

[sentipente]

AT, try being a seeker instead of attempting to validate a position.

 

[StormyOne]

Not everything is inspired because some things directly oppose eachother or are proven to be wrong. We don't even need to get into religion to know this.

I don't see how the authorship of different books makes any difference in regards to whether they are inspired or not.

If the Bible isn't inspired, then it shouldn't be treated any differently then Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.

JM

Are you serious? You don't see the issue of saying that Paul wrote Hebrews when he did not? Who says Zen or the Motorcycle Maintenance books aren't inspired?

 

[StormyOne]

Finally, most of the theories that are popular in critical circles have that the Bible was compiled in a very different process then is presented over the course of a couple hundred years much later then it is presented as. Even more seriously, in the case of the NT that events were made up and presented as fact that would have occured in the lifetime of the audience. And that after this time of construction, that it basically didn't change in ~2000 years (a bit more for the OT, a bit less for the NT).

This doesn't seem a very reasonable hypothesis. You can't go back as far as there is evidence, say that something didn't change in all that time, and then as soon as evidence is missing say that it was created then (contrary to what was beleived). Especially when it is reasonable to beleive that the evidence would be missing (it takes quite a bit to keep the books from BC around until today).

JM

what are you saying? the explanations I have read are simple, those who were "eyewitnesses" to NT things did not write these things down until 40 to 60 yrs later.... the assumption being that you would remember vividly things that you had done 40 yrs previously..... then you have the issue that Mark wrote for Peter, or that the authors that are credited with writing might not be those who actually did.... so if Matthew (for example) did not write Matthew, and we have no idea who did, what would make what was written inspired?

 

[JonMiller]

If we are Christians, and following God, then we are following His direction. If we are following His direction, then we are following His direction in which works we consider inspired. People who followed God in the past provide crucial direction for following God now.

There is no reason to stumble around in the dark.

It's been a long while since I looked at Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. But I could easily point to Rand's Atlas Shrugged which I can clearly point out is directly opposed to Christianity.

Saying that all is inspired is just ridiculous. It just isn't possible. At least the position that nothing is inspired is possible.

All religious/spiritual/philosophical traditions can't be all right. They hold mutually opposing views. If there is a difference, then one set is closer (on the point of that difference) than the other. Most/All of us here consider ourselves Christians. That means that our history is the Christian tradition (which is related to the Islam and Jewish traditions).

If we didn't consider the Christian tradition more correct than the Hindu tradition, then logically we have no reason to call ourselves Christian over calling ourselves Hindu.

JM

 

[JonMiller]

what are you saying? the explanations I have read are simple, those who were "eyewitnesses" to NT things did not write these things down until 40 to 60 yrs later.... the assumption being that you would remember vividly things that you had done 40 yrs previously..... then you have the issue that Mark wrote for Peter, or that the authors that are credited with writing might not be those who actually did.... so if Matthew (for example) did not write Matthew, and we have no idea who did, what would make what was written inspired?

40-60 years later is the maximum time. In many cases there is no reason but for doubting the power of God for placing some of the writings so late.

As an example, some of the books of the NT are based after the destruction of the temple in AD 70. Why are they based after AD 70? Because they contain the statement of Christ's that the temple was going to be destroyed. Assumed in this determination is that Christ couldn't prophecy or wasn't shown the future (or even couldn't just make a guess based upon past and present experience). It is assumed that it must have been added later by the writers of that book.

Basing your doubts on doubts doesn't make your position have any critical or logical merit. The issue here is one of belief, if Christ did know (or guess) that the Temple would be destroyed then there is no reason to place Mark so late. If he didn't, then there is. We can ignore the whole position of "Bible authors making stuff up" by just asking the question "Do you believe that Christ could know or predict the future?". Which basically comes down to the question "Does God have Power?"

Additionally, there were stories and the like going around before hand. (this is even understood by critics, note Q)

As for why no books were written in the first 10 year or so about what Jesus did, remember that everyone assumed that His return would be very quick... most believed it would be within their lives.

Jon Miller

 

[JonMiller]

Note that I do have some doubts or questions about the atonement. I note that Christ preached the gospel, and His preaching seemed to be focused on many things. Primary among them was "The Kingdom of God is at hand".

The substitutionary theory of atonement is theology. As such, it probably isn't completely correct.

JM

 

[StormyOne]

If we are Christians, and following God, then we are following His direction. If we are following His direction, then we are following His direction in which works we consider inspired. People who followed God in the past provide crucial direction for following God now.

There is no reason to stumble around in the dark.

It's been a long while since I looked at Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. But I could easily point to Rand's Atlas Shrugged which I can clearly point out is directly opposed to Christianity.

Saying that all is inspired is just ridiculous. It just isn't possible. At least the position that nothing is inspired is possible.

All religious/spiritual/philosophical traditions can't be all right. They hold mutually opposing views. If there is a difference, then one set is closer (on the point of that difference) than the other. Most/All of us here consider ourselves Christians. That means that our history is the Christian tradition (which is related to the Islam and Jewish traditions).

If we didn't consider the Christian tradition more correct than the Hindu tradition, then logically we have no reason to call ourselves Christian over calling ourselves Hindu.

JM

what is the fascination with being correct? Especially suggesting that "tradition" is correct and to be followed? That is one sure way to stop searching for truth..... rely on tradition...

 

[StormyOne]

40-60 years later is the maximum time. In many cases there is no reason but for doubting the power of God for placing some of the writings so late.

attrributing something to God that he had no part in would be called what?

As an example, some of the books of the NT are based after the destruction of the temple in AD 70. Why are they based after AD 70? Because they contain the statement of Christ's that the temple was going to be destroyed. Assumed in this determination is that Christ couldn't prophecy or wasn't shown the future (or even couldn't just make a guess based upon past and present experience). It is assumed that it must have been added later by the writers of that book.

It is easy for people to go back after the fact and fill in the blanks... its done all the time....

Basing your doubts on doubts doesn't make your position have any critical or logical merit.

attempting to suggest that theology is logical is a stretch my friend..... you being the scientist should be pulling your hair out.....

The issue here is one of belief, if Christ did know (or guess) that the Temple would be destroyed then there is no reason to place Mark so late. If he didn't, then there is. We can ignore the whole position of "Bible authors making stuff up" by just asking the question "Do you believe that Christ could know or predict the future?".

the assumption being that everything reportedly said by Christ was indeed said by Christ and recorded by the named authors...

Additionally, there were stories and the like going around before hand. (this is even understood by critics, note Q)

As for why no books were written in the first 10 year or so about what Jesus did, remember that everyone assumed that His return would be very quick... most believed it would be within their lives.

Jon Miller

I am not talking about when they were written as much as what was compiled to make up the NT, and certainly the processs was not God directed...

 

[sentipente]

As for why no books were written in the first 10 year or so about what Jesus did, remember that everyone assumed that His return would be very quick... most believed it would be within their lives.

Jon Miller

On one hand you claim that God managed the production of the NT then you turn around and essentially say that He forgot to tell these people that their beliefs about His return were a problem. Which is it? Why do we continue to ignore the truth that is staring us in the face?

 

[JonMiller]

what is the fascination with being correct? Especially suggesting that "tradition" is correct and to be followed? That is one sure way to stop searching for truth..... rely on tradition...

Throwing away all history and previous experience is a good way of getting nowhere. As Newton said "Pigmaei gigantum humeris impositi plusquam ipsi gigantes vident".

JM
*"One who develops future intellectual pursuits by understanding the research and works created by notable thinkers of the past"

 

[JonMiller]

attrributing something to God that he had no part in would be called what?

How is that a relevant comment? The issue comes down to if you believe God could do something, then the writings could have been written much closer to the time when the historical events took place. If you believe God couldn't do something, then they had to happen later. The reason to doubt to veracity of the described events is if you doubt they could happen in the first place. If you believe that they could happen in the first place, then you have no reason to doubt the description of the events based upon the time between when the events took place and when they were written down.

It is easy for people to go back after the fact and fill in the blanks... its done all the time....

The theory is that someone went back and added a saying by Jesus. This didn't happen after 120 AD, but for some reason happened before hand. There is no reason to believe that such a thing happened, unless you desire to believe that described events didn't happen. The question comes down to whether you believe God has the power to do it.

attempting to suggest that theology is logical is a stretch my friend..... you being the scientist should be pulling your hair out.....

Theology is an attempt to apply critical and logical reasoning to religion.

the assumption being that everything reportedly said by Christ was indeed said by Christ and recorded by the named authors...

We don't know which Mathew wrote Mathew (that it was the Apostle clearly didn't become tradition until later, note that this isn't a change of the book). Yes, we don't know if what was said by Christ was said by Christ. But obviously, if He was God, or even just a very important person who revealed God, then God would make sure that what was said to come from Him was what God desired for us to think was said by Him. This is because we are followers of God.

Once more it comes down to believing in God (well, specifically the Christian God, as obvious Shiva wouldn't have any reason to keep a message clear).

I am not talking about when they were written as much as what was compiled to make up the NT, and certainly the processs was not God directed...

Why do you believe so?

Jon Miller

 

[JonMiller]

On one hand you claim that God managed the production of the NT then you turn around and essentially say that He forgot to tell these people that their beliefs about His return were a problem. Which is it? Why do we continue to ignore the truth that is staring us in the face?

You note that I have recently been referring to what Jesus preached. Which was that the Kingdom of Heaven is now.

I think that God is willing to allow us to not understand something, if by not understanding it we are still following Him and doing His will. What He won't do is lead us away from Him if we are following Him.

JM