Armchair Critic,

<<Hey Ozspen,How can you be sure it's 'God's Diagnosis' if it was clearly written by someone 'other than God'?
In my view the best you can hope to argue here is 'Man's interpretation' of 'God's Diagnosis'.>>

It's God's diagnosis because the apostle Paul who wrote Romans 1 (which gives the diagnosis and solution why people refuse to come to God) affirms the nature of Scripture elsewhere in his writings:

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Tim 3:16-17).

So, Romans 1 is breathed out (given/inspired) by God. It is given by God to human beings to write. All Scripture in the original writings is inspired by God. It is NOT written by somebody not directed by God (1 Peter 1:21).

Nice try AC but you don't come down on God's side as articulated in the reliable Scriptures.

Armchair Critic,

<<Obviously I'm not saying it's true since I stand for the 'I don't know' side of the argument.
After all, I wasn't there at the time.
That's the beauty of 'I don't know'.>>

So, is it true that Captain Cook and his crew sailed up the east coast of what would be Australia in 1770?

Is it a true fact or are you living in the 'I don't know' realm of historical investigation in relation to Captain Cook?

.

Dear OzSpen,

.

In response to my comment : “I’m sure the Gospels, in particular, are very highly valued by most practicing Christians”, you replied :

« That's because they are reliable historical documents as research has demonstrated », and you point to the evangelical Craig Blomberg’s treatises on the historical reliability of the gospels (1987) and the New Testament (2016).
.

I have not read either of those books but I did browse through Blomberg’s “Can We Still Believe the Bible?” (2014).

He appears to be something of a maverick so far as the evangelical community is concerned. To quote Joseph M. Holden, President and Professor of Apologetics & Theology, Veritas International University (an evangelical institution) :

« Blomberg offers many reasons why evangelicals should not still believe the Bible and should not have justified true belief in the doctrines of the Bible. Perhaps the more important question we should be asking is, “Can We Still Believe the Ideas Offered by NT Evangelical Scholars? » :

http://defendinginerrancy.com/book-review-craig-l-blombergs-can-we-still-believe-the-bible/
.

I am dubious about your statement that most practicing Christians value the gospels because they “are reliable historical documents”. I am more inclined to think that it is because their adherence to Church doctrine commands that they believe that the texts are the result of “divine inspiration”, and as such, are inerrant (incapable of being wrong), and sacred.
.

Please be assured, OzSpen, that I do not make peremptory judgements and keep my beliefs to a strict minimum. They tend to cloud my vision. My mind remains open. I do my best to stay in touch with new developments concerning the god hypothesis. In the meantime, I consider that it is just that – a hypothesis – and everything that has ever been said or written about it, either pure speculation or wishful thinking at the best, or attempted manipulation or mind control at the worst.

I have done my own anthropological research on religion, from its original conception by primeval man to the present day. There are a couple of books I can recommend if you are interested.

.

.

(Continued …)

.

To be complete, OzSpen, I should add that as there have been no major revelations since the bible was compiled about 2,000 years ago, it is highly unlikely that any will be forthcoming any time in the future. The die is cast.

Nevertheless, the need to believe in a god in some form or other, remains strong – e.g., a physical resuscitated Jesus (which you appear to favour) – the rest of the divine family, et al, presumably remaining purely spiritual.

It will be a long time before our public libraries class the bible as an important anthology of monotheistic mythology, alongside all the other major mythologies of the world : Greek, Nors, etc. (their numbers are legion).

It will be a long time before we find a cure for religion.

.

Hey OzSpen
"Nice try AC but you don't come down on God's side as articulated in the reliable Scriptures."

I'm not trying to live my life according to the scriptures.
I live my life according to my mind making fair and reasonable judgements and my conscience.
I'm being true to my beliefs and trying to be the best and fairest person I can be;
I'm happy and humble in my beliefs, and have my own path to follow.

The thing with me is that I just wont be motivated by fear or control tactics.
If you want to win me over you have to do it with ethics and merit.

"So, is it true that Captain Cook and his crew sailed up the east coast of what would be Australia in 1770?"

I don't know mate you're telling the story...
(keywords: 'I Don't Know')

How can I know for sure?
I wasn't there, wasn't even born until nearly 200 years after that.
You're asking me to state something as fact for which I don't have first hand information for.
- All I can state is that I'm lead to believe he did (keyword: 'believe') , based on an assumption (keyword: 'assumption') that the information relating to the topic is accurate.

If I were to witness historical records myself I could speculate with more conviction; (keyword: 'speculate')
And with even more corroborating evidence I could come to a more solid conclusion in regards to whether or not the claim is likely accurate or not; (keyword: 'likely')
- But I could never state it as a fact because I wasn't there.

I don't get the luxury of 'knowing' because I wasn't there.
The best I get is 'discernment'.

Banjo,

<<I am dubious about your statement that most practicing Christians value the gospels because they “are reliable historical documents”. I am more inclined to think that it is because their adherence to Church doctrine commands that they believe that the texts are the result of “divine inspiration”, and as such, are inerrant (incapable of being wrong), and sacred.>>

In my worshipping with and working among practising evangelical Christians for over 50 years. I can agree with you that many believe the Scriptures because of divine inspiration and many consider the original documents inerrant.

However, the facts are: In these reliable NT documents (Blomberg 1987; Blomberg 2016; F F Bruce 1959) we find a statement about the nature of these documents, OT and NT:

"From childhood you [Timothy] have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. ALL SCRIPTURE IS BREATHED OUT BY GOD and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:15-16).

"Breathed out by God" = theopneustos, i.e. theos (God) + pneuma (breath). Some translations have this word as meaning, 'All Scripture is inspired by God' The meaning is the same.

Thus, Christians are justified in supporting the view that the original documents are breathed out by the God who is perfect (Psalm 18:30).

This does not mean that the manuscripts that have reached us do not have variants/typos or changes in them.

<< My mind remains open>>

How can that be since you self-identify as a fence-sitter?

<<There are a couple of books I can recommend if you are interested.>>

Please do that on this open forum.

By the way, even a secular online Huffington Post reported on rocks archaeology recently found in Iraq that confirm the reliability of the OT: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/simcha-jacobovici/2500-year-old-jewish-tabl_b_6579996.html