gregor

my, it must be difficult to keep it all straight prax.

First, you are quite the polymath if you're intent on (i) showing those physcists a thing or two on the speed of light and demonstrating how that shows the universe is 6,000 years old (why don't you go back to that thread split and show your proofs); (ii) disproving those archeologists by the links to sites that espouse "The Bible is the true Word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit. This holds equally for all historical accounts the Bible gives us" (iii) throwing biology, engineering, meterology, and a dozen other disciplines out on their ears by demonstrating that 6,000 kinds lived in a big boat, etc.

Second, nothing I've read in your posts seems to support your assertion that you've come to your conclusions without long-held inerrancy presuppositions.

dzim77

[QUOTE=Iasion;3749557]Greetings,


Ok, now you're making yourself clear. Basically the only thing you're saying is that you believe 1 John 5:7 was "added later".

This, apparently is what you mean when you say "the trinity was added to the Bible".

Thank you for clarifying, Iasion.

So, I think we are misunderstanding eachother... please read carefully because i think this is more of a misunderstanding as to what the doctrine of trinity is, rather than a textually based argument...

1. The doctrine of the trinity is NOT based solely on 1 John 5:7. It does not depend on this verse.

2. The doctrine of trinity is NOT 'inerrant' or 'divinely inspired'. It is simply a theological concept used to discribe God as he is revealed in the Bible.

3. My stance is that the doctrine of the Trinity is clearly found in the Bible through various references and books.

4. In order to show that the trinity is not found in the Bible you must show that one or all of the following points is not in the Bible:

a. God is one (there is one God)
b. The Father is God
c. Jesus Christ is God
d. The Holy Spirit is God
e. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons


To repeat. This passage shows that Jesus Christ is God. This is one of the points of the doctrine of trinity as I stated it above.


No, I don't see a problem. It is a theological concept based on truths of the Bible that I believe is accurate. It is not divinely inspired or inerrant.

ceres

So about the fact that some verses and phrases are in some documents but not others.... how do you know you even have the correct "infallible" Bible?

Amaleq13

That seems a bit one-sided, doesn't it? If it is a question of faith, then it is the case for both sides.

And the, according to your view, more faithful scholars don't have a vested interest in coming to conclusions that support that faith?

That knife must cut both ways, Steven.

I agree though I question whether you have actually recognized it. The point is that, according to you, scholarly conclusions on this issue have less to do with the evidence than whether that evidence is approached with faith or not.



Doug

ETA:
I will have to take your word for this but I have to admit that I see absolutely no evidence of it in your arguments as the vast majority appear to ultimately depend on approaching the text with faith.

dzim77

That God is one. That Jesus is God. That the Father is God. That the Holy Spirit is God. The Father, Son, and Spirit are distinct persons.... are clearly stated in the NT.

Perhaps you reject the parts of the NT that state these? (it seems you do) Perhaps you will only accept a god that we can fully wrap our minds around, a god that is completely within our finite understanding? (i really don't mean to assume but it sounds like that's what you are saying).

It still stands that the trinity is found in the NT.

spin

You have no direct responsibility to me. You have the responsibility to justify your views. I am not promulgating anything in this exchange. You are merely avoiding justifying what you say by obfuscation.


spin

Roger Pearse

I could not see any in the sources that you quoted, tho, despite the highlighting. Unless you perhaps read 'canons'='canon of scripture'? The canons of Nicaea were the rules it laid down for the behaviour of the clergy etc, and had nothing to do with the content of the bible.

None in the ancient sources whatever, tho.

It's worth remembering that Wikipedia is written by people no better informed than you are, or than anyone else is. Mostly it gets compiled from hearsay. Mark cannot sensibly be dated between 83-123 AD, since Luke makes use of it, and it seems odd (to me anyway) if Luke-Acts is dated later than 61 AD since it finishes with the anti-climax of Paul being in prison. In 62 he was released; in 64 he was executed and Christianity became a crime (it seems); in 68 the temple was destroyed. If Luke had written after any of these events, it seems very hard to believe that he would have ignored them. 62, Paul released, would have been a much better finish than 61!

But to a certain extent all is speculation.

Is there some divine manual that specifies that the infallible word of God is supposed to appear in some specific way? If not, how do we know? Scepticism is a good thing, and we all need to practise it.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

S.C.Carlson

I clicked the link and the article doesn't say that. Rather, it says:

Usually dated between 60 and 80, it is regarded by most modern scholars as the earliest of the canonical gospels, contrary to the traditional view of the Augustinian hypothesis.

Stephen

Heidi Guedel

Hello Steven - first off, I appreciate the gentlemanly way that you conduct your rebuttals. I'll do my best to adhere to that standard... although I do have a personal penchant for sarcasm... I'll try to rein it in.

Your first statement: My one correction to your first statement is that I did not "attack" those who presumably compiled the Bible... I discussed their qualifications, and the circumstances involved, and their motivations; I subjected them to scrutiny.

You're basically right, of course. Whomever might be credited with actually selecting and compiling the writings which appear in the Bible would be subject to scrutiny and skeptical analysis. As long as no clear record exists, no one can actually be scrutinized. That is probably preferable for people of faith, who can then persist in their delusions about the Bible being inspired by their Imaginary Friend.:Cheeky:

Heidi Guedel

The oldest Gospel - the Gospel of Mark has been dated between 60 and 80 years after the crucifixion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark

It’s all hearsay upon hearsay. Further down that same Wikipedia page is the following:
Interesting... you make sense... unless, of course, these events were left out because these gospels were all written by men who reported only hearsay and were not, themselves, knowledgeable.

Earlier in this thread I inquired if any of the Gospels had actually been written by anyone who had ever personally heard Jesus speak. Someone replied that Mark heard Jesus speak, and that Mark’s was the earliest of the Gospels… so I looked into the time frame for the writing of the Gospel of Mark. If you are correct, Roger, and the Gospel of Mark was written as early as AD 61, the author would have been quite elderly, if he ever actually spent any time with Jesus and heard him speak. However, the Roman historians and Biblical Scholars tell us that Mark’s Gospel is entirely hearsay - having been based upon Peter's quoting of Jesus. That leaves us with no first-hand written record of Jesus’ dialogue whatsoever.

Presumably, I would expect, in an obviously infallible way.

It seems to me that the amazing assertion that some collection of ancient human writings was actually inspired by an omniscient deity, and is, therefore, the infallible “word of God” is the concept which requires actual proof. This collection of written and translated and re-translated hearsay called The Bible certainly doesn't strike me as having been proven... no where close.