Can I be Christian and Not Believe the Bible?

[bhsmte]

The Gospel of John certainly does constitute an euewitness account.

It is a claim of eye witness account. Determining whether it is a historically credible real eye witness account, is another matter.

Anyone can write a book and claim people saw this or saw that.

 

[Wgw]

It is a claim of eye witness account. Determining whether it is a historically credible real eye witness account, is another matter.

Anyone can write a book and claim people saw this or saw that.

Of course. However, itdoes meet the rather low criteria ser by Nihilist Virus for an apparently first hand account.

 

[Albion]

So which is your claim, that I had the wrong definition of martyr or that I misapplied it? Because you clearly were claiming the former, and you are irrefutably wrong.

When you have an acceptable definition in front of you and you won't acknowledge it, there isn't much more for me to say--or that I need to say.

 

[Dr Bruce Atkinson]

I completely agree.

People have to reconcile their positions in life and beliefs with their own psyche, otherwise, they would be in constant turmoil if they could not reconcile their own beliefs.

Now, depending on a whole host of variables, people are fully capable of reconciling beliefs, that they really believe are right, but they are wrong.

At the end of the day though, the most important thing is whether the belief has a positive impact on the person and not really whether they are right or wrong. Religious beliefs may be the perfect thing for some, as long as they can refrain from negatively judging others who disagree with them, and or misrepresenting well evidenced reality to protect a certain belief, I never question a person's religious beliefs.

I think that is a good policy. But if there really is an objective absolute truth, then people can be more right or wrong. Since none of us can know it all and all of us are fallible to some degree, we must be humble about our own interpretations of sacred writings. But that does not in any way invalidate the writings themselves. If there is a sovereign omnipotent God as understood by JudeoChristian beliefs and this God has chosen to reveal Himself and what is truly right and wrong, then we would be foolish not to take heed. If they are true, then those who follow the teachings will "bear fruit" and it will certainly have a powerfully positive impact. My own beliefs have been confirmed over and over again by just such positive changes in myself and in the believers around me. More love, faith, joy, inner peace, patience, goodness, gentleness and self-control.

 

[HitchSlap]

I think that is a good policy. But if there really is an objective absolute truth, then people can be more right or wrong. Since none of us can know it all and all of us are fallible to some degree, we must be humble about our own interpretations of sacred writings. But that does not in any way invalidate the writings themselves. If there is a sovereign omnipotent God as understood by JudeoChristian beliefs and this God has chosen to reveal Himself and what is truly right and wrong, then we would be foolish not to take heed. If they are true, then those who follow the teachings will "bear fruit" and it will certainly have a powerfully positive impact. My own beliefs have been confirmed over and over again by just such positive changes in myself and in the believers around me. More love, faith, joy, inner peace, patience, goodness, gentleness and self-control.

Are these the same "JudeoChristian" beliefs that have allowed people to own slaves and discriminate against homosexuals?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

The Gospel of John certainly does constitute an euewitness account.

The gospel of John is known to be anonymous and was not written by John the apostle. I thought you were well-versed in ancient history?

When you have an acceptable definition in front of you and you won't acknowledge it, there isn't much more for me to say--or that I need to say.

I think you've been thoroughly destroyed in this debate and your refusal to commit to any tangible position is evidence of that.

 

[Albion]

I think you've been thoroughly destroyed in this debate and your refusal to commit to any tangible position is evidence of that.

One who has prevailed in a debate NEVER needs to salve his feelings with hollow boasting. But when a poster does that for the sake of his own own self-image, I'm usually understanding. So....

Have a nice day!

 

[-(iconoclast)-]

Are these the same "JudeoChristian" beliefs that have allowed people to own slaves and discriminate against homosexuals?

The gospel of John is known to be anonymous and was not written by John the apostle. I thought you were well-versed in ancient history?



I think you've been thoroughly destroyed in this debate and your refusal to commit to any tangible position is evidence of that.

It really doesnt matter who wrote the gospel of John. God wrote, what do you want to do with it?

 

[HitchSlap]

It really doesnt matter who wrote the gospel of John. God wrote, what do you want to do with it?

God wrote what?

 

[Wgw]

The gospel of John is known to be anonymous and was not written by John the apostle.

Only according to some contemporary scholars in he field of Higher Criticism; it is an opinion and not a provaboe fact. It is factual however that a large number of ancient authorities, such as St. Irenaeus of Lyons, did attribute the work to St. John. Were they in error? Possibly. However, assuming they were correct, there is your first hand account of all important instances in the narrative.

Essentially, this has the effect of maiing your perspective that there are no first hand accounts simply another opinion in a sea of opinions, which has the effect of weakening your credibility as a Nihilist skeptic. Skepticism is a two-way street; it increasingly looks as though you actively believe Christianity to be false as opposed to simply rejecting belief.

 

[bhsmte]

Only according to some contemporary scholars in he field of Higher Criticism; it is an opinion and not a provaboe fact. It is factual however that a large number of ancient authorities, such as St. Irenaeus of Lyons, did attribute the work to St. John. Were they in error? Possibly. However, assuming they were correct, there is your first hand account of all important instances in the narrative.

Essentially, this has the effect of maiing your perspective that there are no first hand accounts simply another opinion in a sea of opinions, which has the effect of weakening your credibility as a Nihilist skeptic. Skepticism is a two-way street; it increasingly looks as though you actively believe Christianity to be false as opposed to simply rejecting belief.

The vast majority of NT scholars (even Christian scholars) agree, all four of the gospels are penned by anonymous authors.

In fact, this is one of the points of the gospels, that there is a consensus among scholars and historians.

 

[Colter]

Only according to some contemporary scholars in he field of Higher Criticism; it is an opinion and not a provaboe fact. It is factual however that a large number of ancient authorities, such as St. Irenaeus of Lyons, did attribute the work to St. John. Were they in error? Possibly. However, assuming they were correct, there is your first hand account of all important instances in the narrative.

Essentially, this has the effect of maiing your perspective that there are no first hand accounts simply another opinion in a sea of opinions, which has the effect of weakening your credibility as a Nihilist skeptic. Skepticism is a two-way street; it increasingly looks as though you actively believe Christianity to be false as opposed to simply rejecting belief.

It was customary in that age for teachers to have understudies who wrote what they taught.

 

[Wgw]

The vast majority of NT scholars (even Christian scholars) agree, all four of the gospels are penned by anonymous authors.

In fact, this is one of the points of the gospels, that there is a consensus among scholars and historians.

The Eastern and Oriental Orthodox disagree on this point dogmatically, and our position is basd on that of various ancient sources. The opinions of some contemporary voices of scholarship regarding authorship are simply opinions, which cannot be definitively proven. Indeed much of it is even less rigorous than the field of textual criticism, which is at its best a soft science, a respectable soft science in the manner of psychology or economics, but a soft science nonetheless.

One might also note that several of these scholars are informed by their own religious agenda, for example promoting the dubious claim that the Gospel of Thomas predates the Synoptic Gospels.

Really, what you have in this field can be vacuous. The entire quest for the Historical Jesus is somewhat of a science-free zone, in that there is relatively little falsifiable evidence being presented by anyone.

 

[HitchSlap]

The Eastern and Oriental Orthodox disagree on this point dogmatically, and our position is basd on that of various ancient sources. The opinions of some contemporary voices of scholarship regarding authorship are simply opinions, which cannot be definitively proven. Indeed much of it is even less rigorous than the field of textual criticism, which is at its best a soft science, a respectable soft science in the manner of psychology or economics, but a soft science nonetheless.

One might also note that several of these scholars are informed by their own religious agenda, for example promoting the dubious claim that the Gospel of Thomas predates the Synoptic Gospels.

Really, what you have in this field can be vacuous. The entire quest for the Historical Jesus is somewhat of a science-free zone, in that there is relatively little falsifiable evidence being presented by anyone.

I think you might be confusing traditional beliefs with what can be supported by evidence?

 

[bhsmte]

The Eastern and Oriental Orthodox disagree on this point dogmatically, and our position is basd on that of various ancient sources. The opinions of some contemporary voices of scholarship regarding authorship are simply opinions, which cannot be definitively proven. Indeed much of it is even less rigorous than the field of textual criticism, which is at its best a soft science, a respectable soft science in the manner of psychology or economics, but a soft science nonetheless.

One might also note that several of these scholars are informed by their own religious agenda, for example promoting the dubious claim that the Gospel of Thomas predates the Synoptic Gospels.

Really, what you have in this field can be vacuous. The entire quest for the Historical Jesus is somewhat of a science-free zone, in that there is relatively little falsifiable evidence being presented by anyone.

Historians use the historical method, which is intended to apply a method, to bring as much objectivity to the process as possible.

It is not a hard science no question. With that said, I have read the works of many NT scholars and historians and I have only seen the hard core conservative Christian scholars claim the gospels were penned by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

 

[Wgw]

I think you might be confusing traditional beliefs with what can be supported by evidence?

On the contrary, I am simply pointing out the subjectivity of this issue. Ancient sources represent one form of evidence, scholarly analysis another, yet none of this adheres to the kind of rigour one finds in the hard sciences. Your opinions are simply opinions in a sea of opinions regarding a field in which hard evidence one way or the other is simply lacking, unlike for example, evolutionary biology.

 

[Wgw]

Historians use the historical method, which is intended to apply a method, to bring as much objectivity to the process as possible.

It is not a hard science no question. With that said, I have read the works of many NT scholars and historians and I have only seen the hard core conservative Christian scholars claim the gospels were penned by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

The word "penned" is a bit misleading in a manuscript based system. However, I am inclined to regard the voices of ancient historians and ecclesiastical authorities, for example, St. Irenaeus and Eusebius of Caesarea, as worthy of our attention.

 

[bhsmte]

The word "penned" is a bit misleading in a manuscript based system. However, I am inclined to regard the voices of ancient historians and ecclesiastical authorities, for example, St. Irenaeus and Eusebius of Caesarea, as worthy of our attention.

That's cool.

 

[HitchSlap]

On the contrary, I am simply pointing out the subjectivity of this issue. Ancient sources represent one form of evidence, scholarly analysis another, yet none of this adheres to the kind of rigour one finds in the hard sciences. Your opinions are simply opinions in a sea of opinions regarding a field in which hard evidence one way or the other is simply lacking, unlike for example, evolutionary biology.

That's the point though, without hard evidence to support your claim the author of "John" was John, it would be unsupportable to state for sure he was the actual author. All you can say is, 'we believe John to be the author of "John," but we can't say for certain.

 

[Wgw]

That's the point though, without hard evidence to support your claim the author of "John" was John, it would be unsupportable to state for sure he was the actual author. All you can say is, 'we believe John to be the author of "John," but we can't say for certain.

I agree. My point is merely that there is an apparent first hand account, whereas Nihilist Virus seemed to claim there were no such accounts. In attempting to call into question the veracity of authorship, he raised the goal posts, and took us into the disagreeable realm of subjectivity.

I am the last person on this forum who would consider attempting to persuade atheist members on the veracity of the Christian faith based on falsifiable evidence, however, when Nihilist proposed something that is dubious from the perspective of various ancient authorities, I feel obliged to point that out.