A friend has pointed out that my statement: "However, the early Church was doing theology long before a word of the bible had been written." is incorrect. Of course the early Church before the letters of Paul were being circulated had the Hebrew Scriptures. A very important point.

The title, The origin of facts, for some, means owning their own! And as unsubstantial as an autumn mist that is burned off by the sun's actions and LIGHT!

Fact: there is not enough darkness (ignorance, superstition, fairy tales) in the entire world to extinguish the light of a single candle! Belief is nothing, knowing is everything. One is reminded of a story Sir Richard Brampton tells.

Reportedly he says, he invited a highly placed, Flat Earth Society, official, to a low orbit space flight, so that individual could have his fanatical, fundamental faith-based belief system tested by the incontrovertible facts. As seen with his own eyes as irrefutable evidence!

Anyhow, the official had a window seat and was glued to the view that swam up before his very own eyes.

Upon landing, Sir Richard enquired, well what do you believe now? Whereupon the official replied, [and here I paraphrase,] the special effects were incredibly good and the graphics simply superb.

Conclusion: Some folk will always own their own facts, even when all the evidence to the contrary, indubitably proves them wrong beyond question or massively mislead.

And therefore resist (EVEN LOOKING) change to the point of, dying in a ditch, before surrendering inculcated from birth, BS belief systems!

Time to accept real reformation and the return to the core principles and (unembellished by others) foundational fundamentals of the founder.

"Suffer little children, do unto others, inasmuch as you do to the least among you, you also do unto me, seek ye first the kingdom of heaven within and cast ye not, the first stone. And go from there forward.
Alan B.

Perhaps a better place in Understanding the nature would be an analysis (deconstruction) of the mind that has created our "normal" dreadful sanity. The dreadful sanity that creates all of the usual self-serving "god" ideas.
http://www.beezone.com/thought_and_mind_is.html

and think to say that the church has failed is inaccurate. Your church has failed Sells. Why you need to include genuine people who hacve faith in Jesus Christ, His deat, buhrial and resurrection is nonsensical.

You write

'Most of us would agree with this sentence since we live in an age in which evidence rules'

of course you must be joking. This is an age of irrationality. We have babies born with penis's and academics deny their sex, we have pseudo science being used to shut down industries, we have 'scientist' who believe sheep farts cause gw, we have many uni graduates sold out for feminism/marxism. And I have not started on the unhinged swamp of pussy heads who continually have to lie about Trump due to hatred.

You seem to have more faith than I do. Fortunately faith the size of a mustard seed in Jesus Christ is far more rational and powerful than your faith in what you call 'reason'. It so often puzzles me why unbelievers spend their life attacking truth.

Thank you runner fo proving absolutely and beyound any possible doubt, my case, for me!
Alan B.

Sells,

If I were a student and you were teaching Theology 101 at your liberal Anglican theological college and you taught the content of this article, I’d be tempted to chuck in Christianity as a meaningless, fact-less faith. Maybe I’d continue as a student to be indoctrinated in your fake theology.

In 2017, ‘fake news’ was nominated as word of the year for the Collins Dictionary (2019. s.v. fake news), meaning ‘false, often sensational, information disseminated under the guise of news reporting’.

In ‘fake theology’ you have developed false, sensational information to try to destroy facts in the Bible – all in the name of ‘the origin of facts’ in the 17th and 18th centuries.

Are you daring to convince me that it is not factual that Columbus sailed across the Atlantic Ocean to the Americas in the 15th century because it was not declared a fact until Bacon, Locke and Hobbes?

Specifically, your article is not about the origin of facts but your attempt to philosophically do away with facts in early Christianity so you can peddle your liberal (neo-orthodox) brand of Christianity.

One example:

<<We have been trained in the methods of science and scepticism from our earliest science lesson and we know the difference between fact and fiction. I will argue that such understandings of what is true and what is not are as recent as the eighteenth century>>

This is a false statement that seems to be designed by you to circumvent the facts of early Christianity – facts of Jesus’ existence, His ministry on earth (including miracles), death, burial and resurrection. Did Jesus exist? Is His existence fact or fiction?

Your fake theology is designed to reinvent or deconstruct the meaning of facts to get rid of the factual events contained in Scripture and the early church.

Some Theology 101 student might fall for that one, but I won’t.

Sells,

<< A friend has pointed out that my statement: "However, the early Church was doing theology long before a word of the bible had been written." is incorrect. Of course the early Church before the letters of Paul were being circulated had the Hebrew Scriptures. A very important point.>>

The evidence is more than from the Hebrew Scriptures. The FACTS are that the Early Church Fathers quoted from the NT before the canon of Scripture was finalised in the late 4th century. Here is one example:

“Peter in his Epistle says Though now for a season, if need be, you are in heaviness through manifold temptations; that the trial of your faith, being much more precious than that of gold which perishes, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise, and honour, and glory at the revelation of Jesus Christ; whom, having not seen, you love; in whom, though now you see Him not, yet believing, you rejoice with joy unspeakable, and full of glory, receiving the end of your faith, the salvation of your souls”.
This is a citation of 1 Peter 1:6-9 from Clement of Alexandria (Stromata, Bk IV, ch 20). Available at: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02104.htm

Clement of Alexandria lived ca. AD 150-211/215.

An earlier citation from the Epistle of Peter is in Polycarp’s only surviving Letter to the Philippians, ch 1, ‘In whom, though now you see Him not, you believe, and believing, rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory’ (1 Peter 1:8): See: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0136.htm.

Polycarp was born ca. AD 69 and was martyred ca. 155 at age 86.

PzPen,
This is a rather disappointing response from you. Let's start with a few facts. I was not educated at a liberal Anglican school but in the Uniting Church where I was taught systematic theology by an ex-Presbyterian who was a Barth scholar. As you know, or should, Barth is the great post-liberal theologian of the 20th C.

There are facts in the NT. Jesus was certainly "crucified under Pontius Pilate" as the creed says.
You need to read "Theology and the scientific Imagination" by Funkenstein or/and "The great code" by Northrop Frye or "The biblical narrative" by Hans Frei or any number or works about the nature of biblical texts and their exegesis. It is indeed in theology 101 when most people learn about these things and abandon the simplistic fundamentalism that they learned in bible college.

Sells,

<<This is a rather disappointing response from you. Let's start with a few facts. I was not educated at a liberal Anglican school but in the Uniting Church where I was taught systematic theology by an ex-Presbyterian who was a Barth scholar. As you know, or should, Barth is the great post-liberal theologian of the 20th C.>>

This is a straw man. False scenario. Fake theology. I did not state one thing about your education. Not a thing. This is how I began my post: "If I were a student and you were teaching Theology 101 at your liberal Anglican theological college and you taught the content of this article...."

I based my response on the content of your article and not on your academic background. Please get the facts straight.

<<There are facts in the NT. Jesus was certainly "crucified under Pontius Pilate" as the creed says.>>

Facts, eh? How can that possibly be when you said in the article,

<<"facts" only took on importance after the work of the English empiricists Francis Bacon (1561-1626) and John Locke (1632-1704).>>

You need to be more careful with the words you use.

<<You need to read "Theology and the scientific Imagination" by Funkenstein or/and "The great code" by Northrop Frye or "The biblical narrative" by Hans Frei or any number or works about the nature of biblical texts and their exegesis. It is indeed in theology 101 when most people learn about these things and abandon the simplistic fundamentalism that they learned in bible college.>>

I'm familiar with the works you cited and your antagonism to fundamentalism / evangelicalism is obvious throughout your writings. I’m waiting for you to engage in discussion about the issues that differ between my evangelicalism and your neo-orthodoxy, i.e. modernism or postmodernism.

You haven’t gotten to the nitty gritty yet. You seem to love sloganeering and misrepresenting what I write.

.

Dear Peter,

.

You wrote :

« The mistake of the Reformation was to give the bible to the isolated and often theologically uneducated individual to make of it what they will. The result in our time is that readers living in a culture dominated by scientism draw scientific conclusions i.e. conclusions that rely on factual evidence »

Bibles are rarely “given” to “theologically uneducated individuals”. They may be purchased for US$12 (hardcover, second hand on Amazon). Perhaps they are “given” to non-isolated, theologically educated liberal/Evangelical priests/ministers who interpret the sacred biblical texts for their devotees according to their particular Church dogma – and format their brains either “liberal” or “Evangelical”.

You also wrote :

« The problem is that once these "facts" have been established, assent to them displaces faith. Faith then demands that we sacrifice our intellect and believe in the impossible. A great chasm opens between how we experience the world and our beliefs … This is how Christianity has become a laughing stock in our time and why the Church is falling apart all around us …

We must remind ourselves that the bible … uses all of the facilities of the ancient world; rhetoric, story, poetry and legend. What it does not do is to give us dot points pertaining to facts »

That’s true, but I don’t think “Christianity has become a laughing stock”.

Certainly, people are better informed today and far more knowledgeable than they were 2,000 years ago, but that is not the main reason “why the Church is falling apart” as you say. I think most Christians still hope there is a god – whether they believe there is one or not – if only on their death bed (or that of their loved-ones).

The main reason Church populations increase or decrease around the world has nothing to do with “belief”. It is simply because religion is inherited. The populations of Western (predominantly Christian) countries are shrinking due to their weak birth rates whereas, by comparison, Muslim populations around the world are expanding rapidly due to higher birth rates.

.

Thank you Peter for this great article.

I wish half the readers will actually understand the depth of what you wrote, but I am afraid that this does not seem to be the case.

Banjo,

<<Bibles are rarely “given” to “theologically uneducated individuals”.>>

This is not so in Australia and around the world. There is an organisation, Gideons' International. See: http://www.gideons.org/. Gideons' members, with the school's permission, go to high schools and offer New Testaments to students who accept or reject voluntarily.

They place full Bibles in hospital bedside tables, motels and doctors' waiting rooms.

Aren't the Gideons active where you live?

.

Dear OzSpen,

.

Yes, I had Gideons in mind when I wrote « bibles are rarely “given” to “theologically uneducated individuals ».

But I didn’t know they still existed as I haven’t seen a bible in a hotel room for many years now despite the fact that I spent most of my working life travelling around the world as the international director of a major multinational group with subsidiaries and representatives in over 60 countries.

My memory of Gideons goes back to my early years in Australia where I was born and raised as a third generation Australian in the Queensland outback. I must confess that I did not know they handed out bibles to school kids. They certainly didn’t when I was at school.

As far as I know, nobody has ever given a bible to any of my family members or friends in Queensland or in Sydney for that matter – including the two generations (children and grandchildren) that have come after us.

Thanks for the information. It’s good to hear that they are still going strong.

.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« Thank you, Peter, for this great article. I wish half the readers will actually understand the depth of what you wrote … »

That’s a very modest wish, Yuyutsu. Why not all readers ? But then, perhaps you are right. Not everybody should attempt to swim in deep waters. It can sometimes prove to be a dangerous enterprise.

Take, for example, Peter’s statement :

« … the early Church was doing theology long before a word of the bible had been written. This means that the bible was derivative of the theological ideas of the early Church rather than being a source of factual information from which theology was derived. This means that we have to read the bible through the lens of theology »

Peter plunged in on the deep end there – without even taking a breath. I see what you mean when you say that half the readers would not want to follow him on that one. It’s far too dangerous.

One would normally imagine that when Peter speaks about “the early Church” he means the early Christian Church because he is (apparently) an Anglican deacon. And as we are led to believe that Christ (Jesus of Nazareth) was born sometime between 6 and 4 BC it is difficult to imagine that “the early Christian Church” was “doing theology long before a word of the bible had been written”.

Why ? Because the Christian bible is composed of the Old Testament (the Jewish bible) and the New Testament. “The early Christian Church” did not exist before Jesus was born. Therefore, it could not have been “doing theology long before a word of the bible had been written” as Peter indicates.

There is no consensus among historians as to when the Old Testament was composed but there is no doubt that it existed long before Jesus was born and long before the Christian Church was established as well.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

Also, the bible was composed long before the Bohemian Reformation in the 15th century and the creation of the Moravian Church which was followed by the Protestant Reformation a century later and the emergence of Evangelicalism. These new theological ideas constituted a different manner of interpreting the holy scriptures. They were directly derived from the bible. The bible was not derived from them.

It is not surprising that Jan Hus, the historical first protestant and founder of the Moravian Church, was judged a heretic at the Council of Constance and burned at the stake on 6 July 1415.
.

That is why I say Peter should have taken a deep breath before plunging into those deep, murky waters. Perhaps he should have written : « … the early conceptors of monotheism were doing theology long before a word of the bible had been written ». But, of course, that did not correspond to his objective which was to demonstrate the ineptitude of Evangelicalism to interpret the bible correctly, according to Peter’s own liberal precepts and, no doubt, those of his “Church”.

I hope you will consider, Yuyutsu, that I am one of those readers who understand Peter’s objective, correctly – that I “understand the depth of what he has written” (to use your expression). But I fear that he is a little bit out of his depth, if you don’t mind my saying so.

.

To Peter.

In your article you wrote:

"My criticism of Evangelicalism is that it inappropriately imposes modern epistemology onto biblical texts."

Expand on this thought, and talk about the correct interpretation on biblical texts. Make sure you actually reference the texts you are interpreting as well.

Show your better interpretation by showing a theology of these biblical texts that are being misunderstood by Evangelicalism. Give examples of these points you present or consider them weak and empty words.

There are many passages to consider when discussing theology. Pick one passage. Pick two passages. Show examples so that you can back up the point of impositions on the bible and what the correct interpretations would be.

Banjo,

<<My memory of Gideons goes back to my early years in Australia where I was born and raised as a third generation Australian in the Queensland outback. I must confess that I did not know they handed out bibles to school kids. They certainly didn’t when I was at school.>>

It depends on the number of available Gideons to distribute the Bibles in schools, motels, etc. I live in one of the northern Brisbane suburbs. A Christian couple I know have been in the local Gideon camp and have distributed New Testaments to schools in my region. As of this year, the Qld Dept of Education has prevented Gideons from offering a NT to students in person. The NTs must be placed on a table near the door for students to take one voluntarily.

Voluntary taking of NTs has been the way it is for Gideons in schools.

I have been in both public and private hospitals in Brisbane and a Gideon Bible has always been available. Again, it depends on Gideon members taking the initiative to have Bibles placed in hospitals. As for motels, the issue is the same: Availability of members to initiate contact with motels.

Since the Gideons came to Australia in 1956, they have distributed almost 16 million Bibles - in schools, motels/hotels, hospitals, etc.See: http://www.gideons.org.au/about-gideons-in-australia. On average, Gideons Australia distributes a Bible to non-Christians every 2 minutes.

Sells,

<<My criticism of Evangelicalism is that it inappropriately imposes modern epistemology onto biblical texts. Exegesis then consists of gathering data, and then drawing a conclusion based on evidential fact. Thus, evangelical exegesis consists of gathering all of the "facts" in the texts and coming to certainty. This has never, before the modern age, been a method of exegesis and it misses entirely the intention of biblical writers...>>

Please take leading evangelical Anglican exegete, the late Prof Dr Leon Morris, and his commentary, 'The Gospel According to John' (Eerdmans 1971) and show me where he does what you accuse him of.

Sells,

<<The role of knowledge, after Augustine, was to draw closer to the beatific vision. Knowledge was revealed. This was essentially a passive mode of endeavour. By contrast, beginning with Francis Bacon, the gaining of knowledge was an active endeavour that involved the enquirer in the pursuit of facticity.>>

This was not the case with Martin Luther when he nailed his 95 theses to the church door in Wittenberg, Germany. It was not intuitive, beatific knowledge by Luther.

Luther's study brought him to the conclusion that salvation was attained by God's grace alone. He objected strongly to the corrupt practice of the Catholic Church's selling of indulgences. As a result, he wrote his “Disputation on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences” that became known as “The 95 Theses".

They was a list of questions and propositions for debate. He nailed a copy of the questions on the door of the Wittenberg Castle church on October 31, 1517. See: http://www.history.com/topics/reformation/martin-luther-and-the-95-theses

I found your explanation of the passive role of divine knowledge after St Augustine to be simplistic. Those were not John Wycliffe or William Tyndale's views. The translators of the King James Version of the Bible in 1611 would be up the biblical creek without a theological paddle if they believed in your view of beatific, passive revealed knowledge.

Not_Now. Soon,
Gosh this sounds like an exam. A few preliminary remarks. Biblical stories were read as actual events in history till the end of the 19thC. The turn in exegesis that occurred after the Enlightenment (Locke et al) was that biblical texts were used as evidence in the new epistemology. This led to Newton and Locke leaving behind the theology of the Church to produce a new secular theology that is still around today, particularly in Evangelical circles. Evidence from biblical texts stood on their own apart from the theology of the Church. For example, the doctrine of the Trinity could not be derived from such evidential reading.

The next move came with the arrival of historical textual criticism, particularly the documentary hypothesis that was used to explain the origins and composition of biblical texts. It is note-worthy that two popes both named Pius banned this movement in opposition to what they called “modernism”. This ban crippled Catholic biblical research until the ban was lifted in 1967 in Vatican II. Catholic scholars are now free to used critical methods in biblical studies.

I guess the most obvious example of mistaken exegesis involves the reading of Genesis 1-3:24. The documentary hypothesis holds there exists two versions of a creation narrative written by two authors or schools, the first, Priestly writer of Gen 1-2a whose main concern is the support of the Sabbath in his scheme of six days of creation and rest on the seventh. The second is the YHWIST who narrative is probably older than the Priestly, is more agricultural and involves Adam and Eve, the garden of Eden, fall and expulsion.

To assert that these two stories are accurate accounts of historical events is patently absurd because of their obvious legendary characteristics. Who, we might ask observed these events and wrote them down?

(continued)

If they are taken as historical all our energy is spent on justifying this view. We wonder about the site of the garden and the identity of the rivers and later get interested in digging up the ark of Noah.

If they are taken as theological legends, then we may concentrate on what is being expressed. These texts are particularly rewarding for theological exegesis and have provided the ground of all Christian theology.

Briefly, we learn from the Priestly writer that the creation came about by divine fiat, God spoke and there was. John’s gospel picks this up in his prologue. God, here is not a divine subject but a living word that brings new things to be out of nothing. The creation that comes to be is good. There is no room for evil. Evil can only exist as the denial of the good creation. The devil is a later invention by writers who needed a personalised form of evil in order to knit a narrative together.

The second narrative is even more rich than the first. We learn that evil does come about because of the disobedience of the first couple when they become religious, denoted as reaching out for the things of God, knowing good and evil. They are banished into the world that we live in.

This is all theology 101 and is taught in all mainstream schools.

By the way, take a look at Ex.14:21-29. There are doublets in the text that indicate that it was the result of a cut and paste job with two texts combined. Did Moses, by stretching out his hand over the sea magically part the water, Charlton Heston style, or was the sea driven back by a strong east wind in the night? Were the chariot wheels of the Egyptian clogged so that they turned slowly or did the waters come together in a moment and drown them? We have here two stories, one naturalistic and the other more supernatural.

My argument is that biblical texts demand to be read theologically not as if they described actual events. Certainly, there were often events behind the texts, but the texts were written primarily to talk about God. I repeat, they are more about preaching than modern history.

If I may reverse the roles of student teacher, I would recommend reading Raymond Brown’s (catholic) “The birth of the Messiah.” A bit heavier, Northrop Frye “The Great code”. Anything by Westerman, Childs, or Anderson on the OT. Leander Keck is very good in “The Bible in the Pulpit and Hauerwas “Releasing the Scriptures”

Sells,

<<all knowledge must by passed through the filter of facticity. What we witnessed in the eighteenth century was a merging of theology and science into a single idiom to produce a secular theology never seen before. We continue to live in its shadow. >>

You miss something here. Are God's gifts of prophecy, word of knowledge, word of wisdom, tongues and interpretation based on 'the filter of facticity'. I find it bold of you to try to fit God's gifts into your box of facticity when He speaks of His giving 'revelation' (1 Cor 14:26).

You bet your approach of combining theology and science developed into secular theology that is called modernism and postmodernism. This historical-critical method has been so damaging to biblical Christianity that it is emptying Anglican churches that teach the Bible cannot be trusted.

How do I know. My local liberal Anglican church is not only dead in its worship but empty of people. A neighbouring evangelical Anglican church is packed to the rafters. When will you admit that secular theology is a mantle for humanism in the guise of christianity - with a small 'c'?

<<The mistake in method was to place the bible at the origin of our speech about God. >>

That's out of the mind of Sells. This is the mind of God regarding the Scriptures when Paul wrote to Timothy: 'You have been taught the holy Scriptures from childhood, and they have given you the wisdom to receive the salvation that comes by trusting in Christ Jesus.' (2 Tim 3:15), http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Timothy+3%3A15&version=NLT.

From where has the wisdom to receive salvation come? The holy Scriptures that Timothy had been taught from childhood and not from your view of facticity.

Dear Banjo,

As you know I am not a Christian, nor an expert on the history of the Christian church, so on that I had to take Peter's remarks at face value. I was however impressed by the universal aspects of his article and consider these to be the main message of the article rather than the Christian-specific aspects.

Regarding the bible, the old-testament was finalised around 200AD when it was decided exactly which books to include. While it includes genuine and original spiritual sections, it was badly tampered with, censored and modified by Jewish political authorities, especially King David and Ezra the scribe. Its main objective became to unify the Jewish nation, with God, sadly, pushed into a secondary role, appearing only when convenient for Jewish interests.

I believe it was tragic for the followers of Jesus to include the old testament, or at least some parts thereof, in the Christian bible. This unnecessarily shackles their religion to irrelevant Jewish nationalism, in Peter's words, "a disruption in the ways of the soul". While I am aware of Matthew 5:17-19, I believe that Jesus was only forced to say what he did in order to appease and be able to teach his Jewish disciples who would otherwise turn away, yet he could say so without lying because he knew what the true Law was and which prophecies were indeed true-prophecies, even if his disciples did not. In any case, Jesus never included the official-doctored Jewish history-books - only the "Law and Prophets", certainly not the completed "old-testament" which only came to be 200 years later.

If Peter is correct, then theology was formed DESPITE the old-testament, rather than based on it, although excuses were possibly made so the theology will SEEM to be completely based on the bible.

It appears that Peter is fighting an uphill and unenviable battle against bible-literalists while trying to zig-zag between the red-flags of "heresy", yet as he does so he keeps discovering universal spiritual truths. As a non-Christian who cares not about being called a heretic, I can only enjoy and commend his observations.

To Peter.

Your reply misses the point. Here it is again.

"Expand on this thought, and talk about the correct interpretation on biblical texts. Make sure you actually reference the texts you are interpreting as well."

What you've given definitely expands on your belief to disregard the bible. And that is not the point I am trying to address or argue against. (Because I will not argue for such a point). But you also rationalize your view of disregarding the bible by saying that the church and it's theology is the only one that can interpret the bible.

In this article you said a statement that modern epistemology is being forced on the bible. So I've asked you about what is the correct interpretation of any section of the bible. Without that, all that you are saying is an open disregard for the bible. Not just that theology in the church supersedes the written words of the bible, but also the bible is not even worth consulting.

Here it is again. Provide a correct interpretation of any verse or section of the bible so that you may present a theological view from that interpretation. With out the theological interpretation you have nothing from the bible except arguments for why to not read it.

Or if you have no interpretation and theology of the bible, here is an alternate but direct question for you. Do you disregard the bible completely, or do you not? I'm not talking about it's history, or it's teachings, but of any content that is held in it at all.

Not_Now.Soon
I really do not like your tone. I spent a lot of time in good faith in trying to answer your questions but your are clearly out of your depth, or more likely, so wedded to a deficient method of reading the bible that you refuse to listen to my answers.

How dare you accuse me of neglecting the bible. I have spend years in the pulpit and each sermon was very carefully based on the readings for the week.

Sells,

<<My argument is that biblical texts demand to be read theologically not as if they described actual events. Certainly, there were often events behind the texts, but the texts were written primarily to talk about God. I repeat, they are more about preaching than modern history.>>

Whose theology? Yours or mine?

So there are <<events behind the texts>>. You gave no examples of what you mean.

This is your personal invention about biblical texts: <<the texts were written primarily to talk about God. I repeat, they are more about preaching than modern history.>>

That was not so when Cain killed Abel (Gen 4:8). That's a literal fact, isn't it? Or do you think there is a deeper meaning behind it. If so, who decides the deeper meaning?

What about the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20? Are they actual commands to be kept by the people of Israel or are they theological commands that have no factual meaning?

According to Acts 16:25-28, Paul and Silas were imprisoned in Philippi,

About midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the other prisoners were listening to them. 26 Suddenly there was such a violent earthquake that the foundations of the prison were shaken. At once all the prison doors flew open, and everyone’s chains came loose. 27 The jailer woke up, and when he saw the prison doors open, he drew his sword and was about to kill himself because he thought the prisoners had escaped. 28 But Paul shouted, “Don’t harm yourself! We are all here!”

Is this talking about literal persons, Paul, Silas, other prisoners and the jailer? Was it an actual prison or one that talks about God? Was there a really violent earthquake that shook the prison foundations, the doors flew open, the chains came loose and the prisoners could have escaped? Paul shouted to the jailer not to harm himself. Was that really true or a theological invention?

Were there real events or are you trying to gloss over the literal to give your allegorical or symbolical spin?

Sells,

<<If they are taken as historical all our energy is spent on justifying this view. We wonder about the site of the garden and the identity of the rivers and later get interested in digging up the ark of Noah.

If they are taken as theological legends, then we may concentrate on what is being expressed. These texts are particularly rewarding for theological exegesis and have provided the ground of all Christian theology.>>

I think you miss something fundamental with your modernism/postmodernism, Peter. When we examine Scripture, we deal with the word of truth (2 Tim 2:15). I couldn't possibly follow your view of discarding the historical in Scripture and promoting the view that the Bible contains theological legends.

Nowhere in Scripture do I find what you promote.

What's your kind of 'theological exegesis' look like - just like the modernism you promote that eliminates history from the Bible and refused to take the text at face value and interpret literally.

All theology comes from an exegesis of the biblical text that contains history, poetry, narrative, parables, figures of speech (in literal interpretation), etc.

The Bible says this is to be our approach to Scripture: 'Work hard so you can present yourself to God and receive his approval. Be a good worker, one who does not need to be ashamed and WHO CORRECTLY EXPLAINS THE WORD OF TRUTH'. Truth relates to that which conforms with reality.

Your theological impositions do not conform with the truth of historical, cultural, exegetical interpretation. What you promote is that which destroys the biblical text and does not 'correctly explain the word of truth' - and empties modernist churches.

If you don't believe me, check the liberal dioceses of the Anglican and Uniting churches in Australia. Thriving Anglican churches are found in the largest diocese - evangelical Sydney Anglicans.

Sells,

<<the early Church was doing theology long before a word of the bible had been written.>>

You were not there 2,000 years ago, so how do you know that?

<<This means that the bible was derivative of the theological ideas of the early Church rather than being a source of factual information from which theology was derived.>>

Sadly, this is fake theology. Not a word is mentioned by you of oral tradition, eyewitness testimony and other writings that were used as ‘notes’ for writing Scripture. Luke’s Gospel tells what the writer did:

“Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eye witnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught” (Luke 1:1-4).

Contrary to your view, the Bible is not derivative of theological ideas but Luke’s Gospel was drawn from many sources so that the people who read it “may know the certainty of the things you have been taught”.

<<This means that we have to read the bible through the lens of theology”.

Fake theology again, as Luke demonstrates.

<< The mistake of the Reformation was to give the bible to the isolated and often theologically uneducated individual to make of it what they will >>

You really dumb down the uneducated theologically. You would have treated the Apostles Peter and John as dummies because they were “uneducated and untrained men” (Acts 4:13).

How could a theologically uneducated fisherman, John, write such a theologically profound Gospel? God’s standards are not ours, Peter.

Early church father, Irenaeus, confirmed John wrote the Gospel that bears his name (Against Heresies, 1.8.5). Irenaeus was discipled by Polycarp who was a disciple of the Apostle John.

NNS,

<<Here it is again. Provide a correct interpretation of any verse or section of the bible so that you may present a theological view from that interpretation. With out the theological interpretation you have nothing from the bible except arguments for why to not read it.>>

Don't hold your breath waiting for an example of Sells' theological interpretation, using a specific Scripture. He's a whiz at making general statements that come out of his modernist-postmodernist mind.

Getting specifics will be like pulling a tooth out of a gum and the tooth won't budge.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« … the old-testament was finalised around 200AD when it was decided exactly which books to include »

There is no scholarly consensus as to when the Hebrew Bible canon was fixed. It seems the Pentateuch or Torah had been accepted since the time of Moses in the 1440s BC but did not take final form until around 400 BC. Some scholars say the whole law dates to Moses, but agree that Ezra did some editing or “clarification”.

Orthodox Christians, Catholics and Protestants use different canons, which differ with respect to the texts that are included in the Old Testament that, together with the New Testament, constitute the Christian Bible.

Despite these differences, the fact remains that the majority of the Old Testament texts were composed long before Jesus was born and long before the Christian Church was established. There is absolutely no way “the early Christian Church” could possibly have been “doing theology long before a word of the bible had been written” as Peter declared in his article.

Consequently, the conclusion Peter draws from that erroneous premise has not been substantiated :

« This means that the bible was derivative of the theological ideas of the early Church rather than being a source of factual information from which theology was derived »
.

You also observe :

« It appears that Peter is fighting an uphill and unenviable battle against bible-literalists … »

In my view, that too is an error. Nobody can change the beliefs of another person. If anybody can change them, it is the person himself or herself, nobody else. It is possible to change reality, but not another person’s beliefs.

Deep-rooted beliefs form an integral part of each individual human being. To question the credibility of a person’s deep-rooted beliefs is to question the integrity of that person.

All we can do is to try to understand why somebody believes what he/she does. As Anatole France said :

« It is better to understand a little than to misunderstand a lot »

.

To Peter.

I'm sorry if I insulted you, but you must understand. This conversation has been going on for a while now with my asking you for a correct interpretation. What you gave outlines your view with more to go to for why a historical interpretation is wrong, and that, as far as I can tell has been your ongoing position. Not about what is a correct theology, but about what are erroneous theologies. If there is a reply coming for what is a correct theology for the bible sections you gave, then I would be delighted that you finally gave both a scripture example and a theology you hold based on that scripture. The scripture example you gave is on Genesis 1-3:24. But after reading it the first time I didn't see a theology that you've gained from those verses.

Is the theology you hold that God spoke and created the earth, and that evil came from disobedience from God? Or are those competing theologies that are both not true, and they are a contradiction. The way you've written it sounds like they are an example to disregard the bible instead of learn from it. You call them both legend and part of an explanation of a false historical theology. Can you see where I'm coming from here?

It's gotten to the point to ask if you actually have any theology based on reading the scriptures, or if you disregard it all and hold the bible as worthless. If I am wrong and you hold a theology based on sections of the bible, then I apologize.

Dear Banjo,

«the majority of the Old Testament texts were composed long before Jesus was born and long before the Christian Church was established.»

This is not contested, yet the question is, what exactly was Jesus referring to in Matthew 5:17 as "the Law or the Prophets", for this is the point where Christianity became entangled and burdened with the old-testament.

It obviously could not have been the entire completed old-testament as it stands today, since it was not yet finalised/sealed, nor did Jesus include in his statement the histories of the Jews, the cosmological sections or other sections of the old testament that are clearly neither Law nor prophecies.

The "Law" simply means the 613 commandments of the Pentateuch, 248 do's and 365 dont's, which Jesus urged his disciples to keep. It appears that at the time, "The Prophets" referred to a common and well-known list of specific prophets and/or prophecies (possibly compiled into a, now lost, separate book/scroll). Otherwise, how could the prophets themselves be destroyed/abolished? A list can be destroyed, not the actual prophets!

We could also speculate that the list of Laws and Prophets could be somewhat different than today's Rabbinical list, but then Jesus would have known which Laws are truly from God (thus truly part of the "Law") and which are later manipulations. Similarly, Jesus would have known which prophets/prophecies were indeed produced through the Holy Spirit (thus truly part of the Prophets) and which did not.

It is most likely that SOME of the prophecies, were late political insertions, most clearly the "prophecies" of Samuel against Saul and foretelling his death. Critical reading of the book of Samuel and Chronicles, shows that Saul, the first King of Israel, was in fact a very good/generous/kind king who did nothing wrong, but when the cruel and dishonest bandit, David, usurped his kingdom, he ordered the scribes to smear Saul's name, painting Saul as a moody and irresponsible madman - and he supported this view in the "prophecies" of Samuel. Will we ever know what the prophet Samuel actually said? probably not, but Jesus knew.

To Yuyutsu.

Everything you just wrote is unsupported speculation. The matter to consider is that throughout the bible, no reference to correct older texts exist. Not by prophets, not by Jesus. If there was an error, I would think it would be exposed, due to the high value for being pure, and against lies and false testimony.

No instead, the good and the bad are reported on most of the people of the bible. If there was going to be changes in the bible, they would have removed the parts that showed their faults. Instead you have histories and events that show an inspiring amount of dedication, faith, and goodness, along side several faults, missteps, and moments of weakness that those same people had.

If anything it's inspiring the truthfulness expressed, as well as knowing that these people that God blessed, were like anyone today with our imperfections and struggles.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« … the question is, what exactly was Jesus referring to in Matthew 5:17 as "the Law or the Prophets", for this is the point where Christianity became entangled and burdened with the old-testament »

You raise there a technical question for those who place their faith in the narratives of the scriptures which, I’m afraid, I don’t. I’m not even sure that Peter does either so he may not be the best person to turn to for the sort of technical response you appear to be seeking.

For what it is worth, my personal opinion is briefly as follows :

1. Each of the four gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, was written in a specific context for a specific purpose, which affects how we understand its allusions, references, and framing.

2. Matthew, Mark and Luc are the three synoptic gospels (“an account of the events from the same point of view or under the same general aspect” – OED).

3. Matthew is the first of the gospels in the New Testament. It was probably placed in that position because it acts as an interface between the Old and the New Testament. It’s obvious that Matthew was written for a Jewish audience. While the book doesn’t say “to my Jewish friends,” it clearly depicts Jesus as a Jew and contains numerous references to the Old Testament that indicate that Matthew really wanted his audience to see the Christ in relationship to Jewish tradition.

4. The source information for Matthew is a matter of contention among experts. The actual author is also unknown. He is thought to have been an anonymous male Jew who wrote in in a polished Semitic "synagogue Greek". It seems likely that the writings of the 8th-century BC prophet Isaiah ben Amoz (a major contributor of the Book of Isaiah) as well as other Jewish literature and oral traditions were among Matthew’s sources.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

5. Matthew deliberately connected Jesus to Messianic prophecies in order to leave no doubt that he was the Messiah—the one who was promised, the long-awaited king of the Jews from the line of David.

I think that sums up the purpose of Matthew’s gospel. It serves as a link between the Old and New Testaments in order to persuade the Jews that Jesus was the Messiah (the Christ), born of Abrahamic and Davidic lineage (Matthew 1:2-16).

I don’t see anything unusual about the fact that, as you say : “this is the point where Christianity became entangled and burdened with the old-testament”. The bible is full of contradictions, inconsistencies and absurdities.

It should not be read as a history book. It makes no appeal to reason. It doesn’t matter what foolishness, baloney or utter nonsense the bible contains seen in the light of our 21st century scientific knowledge and understanding. It was written for an audience stretching from the 1st century AD to the Age of Enlightenment in the 18th century. It was founded on faith and faith alone – which is why, as you say, “Peter is fighting an uphill and unenviable battle against bible-literalists” who continue to place their faith in it.

I, personally, find the Christian bible extremely interesting. It is a major book of reference that occupies an important place in my library as an anthology of Jewish and Christian mythology.

.

May His Eminence’s incarceration not be overly stretched.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/cardinal-george-pell-found-guilty-of-child-sex-abuse-20181214-p50m86.html

.

Dear plantagenet,

.

You wrote :

« May His Eminence’s incarceration not be overly stretched »
.

His Eminence, Cardinal George Pell, was found guilty by a popular jury of 12 (4 women and 8 men) on five counts of sexual abuse of two 13-year-old choir boys in the sacristy of the Melbourne cathedral while still wearing his purple robes in 1996. He had just celebrated the Sunday solemn mass in the cathedral in which he had been inaugurated archbishop a few months earlier.

One of the boys survived to testify before the court. The other boy died in 2014 from a heroin overdose.
.

Pell’s statement through his solicitor :

« Cardinal George Pell has always maintained his innocence and continues to do so. An appeal has been lodged against his conviction and he will await the outcome of the appeal process.

Although originally the Cardinal faced allegations from a number of complainants, all charges except for those the subject of the appeal have now been either withdrawn, discharged or discontinued. He will not be commenting in the meantime »
.

The Vatican’s statement :

« The Pope confirmed Cardinal Pell has been forbidden from contact with minors as part of “precautionary measures” until his appeals have concluded, adding that he must also abstain from public ministry.

This includes a ban on him saying Mass in public and, “as is the rule, contact in any way or form with minors”.

The Vatican spokesman, Alessandro Gisotti, said the news of the conviction was “painful” and the Vatican was aware that his conviction for child abuse has shocked many people around the world.

However, no other measures will be taken against Pell until his appeal proceedings are exhausted, with the spokesman adding that he has “reiterated his innocence and has the right to defend himself” until the last level of justice »
.

Pell was released on bail to undergo surgical knee replacements in Sydney on Dec. 14. Prosecutor Mark Gibson did not oppose bail, saying the surgery would be more easily managed outside the prison system

.

https://cruxnow.com/news-analysis/2019/02/27/vatican-contrast-on-pell-mccarrick-driven-by-doubt-about-guilt/

POPE BLAMES DEVIL

Holy Men on Earth are therefore not responsible for deciding to rape kids.

____________________________________

In a shock move Pope expresses contrition!

http://www.smh.com.au/national/what-the-pope-didn-t-say-when-he-blamed-the-devil-for-child-sex-abuse-20190225-p5100n.html

Nah. He didn't.

Had ya going there...

We live in a violent culture where revenge is considered a virtue.

It is not!

Convincingly enough, the choir boy was not consciously lying, but long-term memories are subject to distortions and misinterpretations, even more so in the presence of alcohol, guilt and lying. According to the testimony, the boys sipped sacrificial wine and one of them told Pell: “Can you let us go? We didn’t do anything” - obviously a lie.

Pell was very clearly upset and angry when he discovered the desecration of the holy sacramental wine. It is likely that he wanted to inflict as much pain as possible on the boys, but very unlikely for him to be sexually aroused at such a time. In his rage he possibly (though unjustifiably) considered a sexual punishment adequate. Quite possibly, he even preferred and pretended to be seen as a paedophile rather than reveal his greater shame at failing to protect the holy blood-of-Christ that was desecrated in his presence. He could even deny that desecration in court and take that shame to his grave, even if this adds years to his imprisonment as a presumed paedophile.

Nevertheless, let us assume that the choir-boy's testimony was completely true.

The second spiritual injunction in Hinduism is truth-telling, Satyam, but Satyam is still subordinate to the first injunction: non-violence, Ahimsa, so should the two conflict, non-violence takes precedence over truth-telling.

Throwing in jail an elderly man who is obviously non-dangerous at present, for the thrill of revenge over something he did more than 20 years ago, is violence. It will not help the victim in any way, it will only be to his spiritual detriment, it will only exacerbate his problems and make him feel more guilty for his childhood mischief. A better attitude would be: "OK, I was naughty so I got punished. It might not have been proportional to my crime, but I better call it a day, turn a page and stop the cycle of violence right here". Spoiling one's whole life over a 6-minute traumatic incident, agonising as it might have been, is simply unwise.

Oops, I mistakenly posted the above in the wrong thread.

I don't think that discussing Pell's court-case is relevant to this important discussion about the Origin of Facts.

.

Revelations of Church-related paedophilia continue around the world and seem to be never-ending. They touch all denominations, but the Catholic Church is by far the worst offender – to such an extent that its endemic nature is evident.

The Catholic Church is morally bankrupt as an institution.

Pope Francis is now left with just two options : either he puts a stop to it or he admits his inability to do so and resigns :

« And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves » — Matthew 21:12–13

As Jesus clearly demonstrated: there is no other honourable alternative.

I find it very interesting to see that the Vatican knows exactly what should be done to avoid any further crimes of paedophilia committed by the clergy. Allow me to quote, once again, the Vatican’s statement regarding His Eminence, Cardinal George Pell :

« The Pope confirmed Cardinal Pell has been forbidden from contact with minors as part of “precautionary measures” … »

Those “precautionary measures” should be extended to include the totality of the Catholic clergy throughout the world with immediate effect – but in a slightly less restrictive form.

In my professional dealings with top officials of a major Chinese state-owned company in the financial sector, the rule was that no senior official was ever allowed to have a meeting with me unless he or she was accompanied by another Chinese official from the same sector. I never had a face to face meeting with my principal interlocutor – even if it was over a casual lunch or dinner.

That is the rule which, to my mind, should be practiced by the Catholic Church in all its dealings with children under the age of 18. The confessional should also be banned for that age bracket.

.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

«If there was going to be changes in the bible, they would have removed the parts that showed their faults.»

And they tried, but one, they were not thorough enough as the text was spread over several scrolls and text finding and editing was not as easy as today; and two, some crimes were too publicly well-known to ignore, so all they could do instead was to soften and try to justify them.

---

Dear Banjo,

Thank you for your interesting remarks.

Faith is a wonderful thing to have and life without it is unfulfilling, but it can sometimes be misplaced, including (but not limited to) in some of the less-than-authentic sections of the bible and in modern material science.

Those who want to follow the blessed footsteps of Saint Jesus of Nazareth would find it easier if they stopped burdening themselves with much of the edited Hebrew texts.

Yuyutsu,

<<And they tried [removing Bible parts showing faults], but one, they were not thorough enough as the text was spread over several scrolls and text finding and editing was not as easy as today; and two, some crimes were too publicly well-known to ignore, so all they could do instead was to soften and try to justify them.>>

That is your personal opinion. You provided no supporting evidence.

<<Faith is a wonderful thing to have and life without it is unfulfilling, but it can sometimes be misplaced, including (but not limited to) in some of the less-than-authentic sections of the bible and in modern material science.>>

Faith in what or whom?

<<Those who want to follow the blessed footsteps of Saint Jesus of Nazareth would find it easier if they stopped burdening themselves with much of the edited Hebrew texts.>>

Nothing in Scriptures says Jesus was a saint.

The Hebrew texts of the OT applied to the nation of Israel and not to followers of Jesus Christ. Jesus said, 'Do not think I have come to get rid of what is written in the Law or in the Prophets. I have not come to do this. Instead, I have come to fulfill what is written' (Matthew 5:17).

However, Christians benefit from OT teaching in this way:

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

Since this was written before the NT was compiled, it applied to the OT which,
(1) Is breathed out by God and is useful for ...
(2) Teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that ...
(3) God's servant will be equipped to do good works.

So, there is valid teaching in the OT for NT believers, but all of God's commands to the Israelites do not apply to Christians. Most of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20) are found in Jesus' teaching in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7).

Dear OzSpen,

"All Scripture is God-breathed"

Indeed, this is almost by definition, but not everything that was ever written can be considered as scripture.

The question at hand is about the relationship between what Jesus referred to as "Law and Prophets" and the book we now know as "the bible" (by Jews) or "the old testament" (by Christians).

Clearly there is an overlap and I too occasionally use sections of the OT for the purposes you listed, yet we must tread with caution because parts of the bible have been tainted.

«Nothing in Scriptures says Jesus was a saint.»

Or anyone else for that matter, not directly, but if a bird with the typical long-white neck swims gracefully on the lake without getting wet, then I would call it a swan. I hope and believe that you do not suggest that Jesus ever sinned or that his miracles were counterfeit.

«That is your personal opinion. You provided no supporting evidence.»

True. Unfortunately I gave away those books on which I base this opinion, that researched the bible forensically, read between the lines, compared it with other scrolls from that period and arrived at these conclusions.

«Faith in what or whom?»

Faith in God never fails but faith in edited books is dangerous.
According to the above research, for example, the Israelites used to deify Joshua, even way beyond their admiration for Moses. The bible was then edited to hide this shameful fact and soften Joshua's roll, big enough as it remains. It also took care to mention that nobody knows where Moses is buried in order to prevent similar wrongful worship of his grave and having faith in him instead of in God.

Yuyutsu,

<<not everything that was ever written can be considered as scripture.>>

That's Yuyutsu's view. God’s view is 'all Scripture is God-breathed'.

I do wish you would know the content of the Bible before making an ignorant comment like you did.

<<Clearly there is an overlap and I too occasionally use sections of the OT for the purposes you listed, yet we must tread with caution because parts of the bible have been tainted.>>

That's Yuyutsu's opinion. You gave no examples. The NT uses some sections of the OT for teaching, e.g.
+ Jesus referred to the burning bush incident to explain his resurrection (Ex 3:6; Mt 22:32; Mk 12:26; Lk 20:37).
+ When Jesus told a rich man how to enter the kingdom of God, he pointed to the Ten Commandments (Ex 20:12–16; Mt 19:18–19; Mk 10:19; Lk 18:20).

<<I hope and believe that you do not suggest that Jesus ever sinned or that his miracles were counterfeit.>>

The sinless Son of God who was God never called himself a saint.

<<Unfortunately I gave away those books on which I base this opinion, that researched the bible forensically, read between the lines, compared it with other scrolls from that period and arrived at these conclusions.>>

Haven't you heard of using Dr Google to do research online?

<<Faith in God never fails but faith in edited books is dangerous.>>

How would I know this truth: 'Yet to all who did receive him [Jesus], to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God' (John 1:12)? I need NT Scripture.

I don't put my faith in edited books but in the Lord God revealed through Scripture.

<<the Israelites used to deify Joshua, even way beyond their admiration for Moses. The bible was then edited to hide this shameful fact and soften Joshua's roll, big enough as it remains.>>

Again, you provide no evidence. To say it is in a book you gave away is dodging the issue. You seem to want to denigrate the OT and NT as the Book of Scripture.

To Yuyutsu.

You said regarding the bible being edited:

<<And they tried, but one, they were not thorough enough as the text was spread over several scrolls and text finding and editing was not as easy as today; and two, some crimes were too publicly well-known to ignore, so all they could do instead was to soften and try to justify them.>>

Do you have anything to support these claims, or are they just one more of your unsupported opinions that you think is the truth and factual. Let me say it again. Just to be clear. The bible tells of both the good and the bad that people do. Most people have more self censorship then that and only publically report the good things they do. So if they wanted to remove something and were actively editing the bible then they would be successful in doing it. The fact that this isn't the case is more then enough evidance to reject your claims.

Therefore in this case you need to have more then another speculative claim to back up your other unsupported speculative claims. Is there anything to support what you've written to suggest it's true outside of your demand that it is true?

NNS,

<<Do you have anything to support these claims, or are they just one more of your unsupported opinions that you think is the truth and factual. Let me say it again. Just to be clear. The bible tells of both the good and the bad that people do. Most people have more self censorship then that and only publically (sic) report the good things they do. So if they wanted to remove something and were actively editing the bible then they would be successful in doing it. The fact that this isn't the case is more then enough evidance (sic) to reject your claims. >>

You have stated it well in opposing Yuyutsu's view of the biblical text.

If the Bible were not factual, the OT judgements by God would be cut out, e.g. Noah's flood that saw the drowning of all people on earth except for 8 (Genesis 6-9). These verses would be censored:

The wicked plot against the godly;
they snarl at them in defiance.
But the Lord just laughs,
for he sees their day of judgment coming (Psalm 27:12-13).

Josephus (first century Jewish historian) wrote: 'Let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of their sex‘ (Antiquities of the Jews, 4.8.15).

However, who went to the tomb on resurrection morning? According to the NT, the first witnesses of Jesus after his resurrection were women, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (Matthew 28:1-10).

For ancient historians, this is an example of the criterion of embarrassment to demonstrate the credibility of a document. With the Jewish attitude towards female witnesses, to record these females demonstrates the genuineness of the historical document.

To OzSpen.

Thank you for agreeing with my answer to Yuyutsu.

The one thing I'd add is that though you and I agree that the bible is trustworthy, reliable, and says the truth, the answer I gave was meant only for the scope of the bible not being edited as it is often criticized as having been. If the bible is truthful as well is a related subject, but for now I would settle for confronting the issue that there's no evidence of changes made to the bible, except for speculative assumptions on the matter that hold no real support.

Since this is a common criticism against the bible, and is one that Yuyutsu holds, (that the bible has been changed), I wanted to address that point specifically. As of now, I am only aware of documents that strengthen the support that the bible has been passed down faithfully without intentional or unintentional editing and errors involved. Even to the point of ancient texts being recovered that match current translations that are conveyed in those surviving texts. Texts such as the Dead Sea scrolls show no correction or else they would be part of the criticism against the bible. No other documents recovered show signs of tampering and editing of the bible or support the speculation that the bible has been tampered with. This should be a huge red flag to the speculation, but instead the assumption persists in spite of no evidence of tampering with biblical documents throughout history.

NNS,

<<for now I would settle for confronting the issue that there's no evidence of changes made to the bible, except for speculative assumptions on the matter that hold no real support. >>

How then do you account for the earliest Alexandrian MSS having Mark 16 finishing at v. 8? Later MSS added vv 9-20?

How about the incident of the adulterous woman in John 8:1-11? The ESV has this note at the end of John 7: 'The earliest manuscripts do not include 7:53–8:11'.

Is 1 John 5:7-8 in all of the earliest MSS? No!

Therefore, I question the accuracy of your statement, 'no evidence of changes made to the bible'.

<<I am only aware of documents that strengthen the support that the bible has been passed down faithfully without intentional or unintentional editing and errors involved.>>

I suggest you read other evidence. I'd recommend Gleason Archer 1982. Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Zondervan). A brief discussion of 1 John 5:7-8 is on p. 375 of my copy. There is a new edition dated 2011, titled: New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Archer & Archer, Zondervan).

The job of textual critics is to compare MSS to arrive at the most reliable text. It's a meticulous and difficult job.

To OzSpen.

You've raised some good points that I haven't considered. I don't know what to say about them as of now, and probabley won't have an answer any time soon. Perhaps you have an answer of your own though. From your studies you have come to the conclusion that the bible is a reliable document and have stated your stance on this several times. That is still my stance as well, but in light of the verses in Mark that are missing in earlier transcripts and there in later transcripts, I don't know what to say. The other points I wil have to look into further to consider more fully.

At the very least they are counter arguments that I was not aware of, and therefore something I am glad to not be blind to. So for that aspect (and the knowledge that you have seen this critism and still risen to hold the bible as reliable), for that aspect I thank you for sharing that information and those points to me.

NNS,

For more details on the long ending of Mark, see my article, 'Does Mark 16:9-20 belong in Scripture?' at: http://truthchallenge.one/blog/2015/04/05/does-mark-169-20-belong-in-scripture/. It is only an introductory discussion of some of the issues.

Biblical scholars are divided on the authenticity of long ending, vv 9-20. Here are some of the issues:

1. The verses cannot be found in the oldest, and regarded as the most reliable, MSS. e.g. Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus.

2. The long ending also is not found in some important Old Latin, Syriac, Armenian, and Ethiopian MSS.

3. Some of the early church fathers didn’t quote this portion, e.g. Clement, Origen & Eusebius.

4. Jerome, translator of the Latin Vulgate, admitted almost all Greek MSS available to him did not include it.

5. In addition to this longer ending, there is a shorter ending in some MSS, suggesting some editing of the text.

6. Those who know Greek have shown that the style and vocabulary of vv 9-20 do not synchronise with the remainder of Mark's Gospel.

7. The ending of Mark 16 at v. 8 seems abrupt.

Could Mark have been interrupted while he was writing this or has a leaf or columns been torn off? I find it difficult to conclude that 16:8 is the end of the papyrus scroll as it is such an abrupt ending. So it seems some MSS copyists added a longer ending while others chose a shorter one (with help from Geisler & Howe 1992. When Critics Ask, p. 378)

This issue is not worth breaking fellowship with other Christians. It is not core teaching.

The discipline of textual criticism examines these matters. You might find some benefit in this online resource that is dated but the principles continue to be applied: Text and Manuscripts of the New Testament (by Charles Fremont Sitterly), available at: http://www.bible-researcher.com/isbetext02.html.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

This discussion over the accuracy and sanctity or otherwise of the old-testament is the subject of internal Jewish politics and crucial for the Jewish faith, yet neither your faith as Christian, nor mine as Hindu needs to depend on it.

Due to its importance for the Jews, extensive research was made and many books published on this topic in Israel, in Hebrew. I read some of those, but since lost interest and gave the books away. My opinion in this matter was formed on the basis of what I read, but I don't consider this issue to be important enough for me to re-order the books from Israel.

«Jesus referred to the burning bush incident to explain his resurrection»

The resurrection of Jesus, which I have no problem with, does not depend on the example he gave to the Sadducees, speaking in their own terms: "But in the account of the burning bush, even Moses showed that the dead rise". That the dead rise can still be true even if the Jewish account of the burning bush was less-than-accurate.

«he pointed to the Ten Commandments (Ex 20:12–16; Mt 19:18–19; Mk 10:19; Lk 18:20)»

Jesus referred to some of what we now know as the Ten Commandments. He did not refer to them as "the ten commandments" nor as "Exodus 20". The truth of the content does not imply the cleanliness of the container.

“I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery."

Modern forensic research indicates that only the Levites were in Egypt and came out in the Exodus while the other 11 tribes of Israel remained in Israel throughout. There is much to say on the topic, but my point is that this and other internal Jewish political disputes, need not and should not affect the Christian faith. The list of God's moral commandments as spoken by Jesus, should suffice.

[Continued...]

[...Continued]

«You seem to want to denigrate the OT and NT as the Book of Scripture.»

I said nothing of the NT, nor formed any view about it.
I leave the discussion about it among yourself, OzSpen, Peter Sellick and other Christians.

Finally, I wholeheartedly agree with OzSpen:

"This issue is not worth breaking fellowship with other Christians."

And may I add, not just Christians.

Yuyutsu,

<<This discussion over the accuracy and sanctity or otherwise of the old-testament is the subject of internal Jewish politics and crucial for the Jewish faith, yet neither your faith as Christian, nor mine as Hindu needs to depend on it.>>

This is false. What did Jesus say to the the Jewish leaders?

"Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?’

‘Haven’t you read,’ he replied, ‘that at the beginning the Creator “made them male and female,” and said, “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh”]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate" (Matt 19:3-4).

Here, Jesus guotes from Gen 1:27 and Gen 2;24, thus bringing the OT into the NT. There are many fine OT exegetes and theologians who are not Jewish, e.g. Keil & Delitzsch, Walter Kaiser, Gleason Archer, H C Leupold, R K Harrison, etc. Your understanding of the Judeo-Christian world view is lacking. YHWH, the Lord God Almighty of Judaism is the Lord God of Christianity.

<<Jesus referred to some of what we now know as the Ten Commandments. He did not refer to them as "the ten commandments" nor as "Exodus 20".>>

This is another example of your lack of knowledge. Jesus could not refer to Ex 20 because there were no chapters and verses in the OT at the time of Jesus.

Take a read of Matthew 19:16-19 at: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt+19%3A16-19&version=NIVUK. We would have to be blind if we didn't see that Jesus here referred to some of the 10 Commandments. In Matt 19:19, Jesus quotes from Exodus 20:12-16 and Deuteronomy 5:16-20.

There is no need for Jesus to state these are from the 10 Commandments. The words themselves confirm that.

Dear OzSpen,

I tried to keep my response to Not_Now.Soon succinct and only respond to his concerns rather than open up new aspects. In fact while drafting my response, I originally mentioned just what you mentioned that the bible had no chapters and verses, but then I cut it off for brevity and clarity. I would like to keep it this way, also as my time here is not unlimited.

Many things in the OT are true, so nothing is wrong about Jesus mentioning that content. This does not imply that Jesus was quoting from the OT just because it was the OT - he simply told the truth, which happened to also be written there.

Yuyutsu,

<<Many things in the OT are true, so nothing is wrong about Jesus mentioning that content.>>

That's your worldview speaking. It is not a biblical worldview which is clear:

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

<<Many things in the OT are true>> is Yuyutsu's assertion and point of view.

God's view is that ALL of the OT is God-breathed and comes with the authority of the perfect God who does not lie (Psalm 18:30; Titus 1:2).

To Yuyutsu.

One correction. Christian Faith depends heavily on Jewish faith. It's not about Jewish internal politics but over the foundations that Jesus taught from and what was recorded before. As Paul wrote the old testiment scripture is God breathed, and therefore trustworthy. Jesus also said something simular, that not one word from the scriptures will pass away, and spoke of the importance of what is written in them.

Hindu faith doesn't depend on it, because Hinduism doesn't have a foundation in Jewish faith. In the same way many other religions don't rely Jewish texts because they have no foundation from those teachings, customs or history. Christianity does though. Muslim Faith, while should have the same roots as Christianity as it claims, however it also does not hold a foundation from Jewish texts, instead a goes to try and rewrite some of the stories in the bible as a new versions, and different teaching. Because of this it is a fraud. Christianity though does depend on the old Testiment scriptures, so this is not a Jewish politics thing at all.

As for the books that you read, if you can at least give a reference to them so that I can know what they are that would help at least a little. You don't have to reorder the books, as long as you can let me know what they were, then I can make my own decisions about them. As of now what you say and your opinion remain largely unjustified. They can be justified by a Hindu perspective possibly, but not by studying how the world works, nor through experience, nor through Christian or Jewish faiths. If you can at least reference a book title and author then I can reference something that you've gathered your opinions by. Accountability, in this case is a very large gap in what you present in these discussions. The gap only gets bigger, by not being able to justify your positions and instead make another claim on your own, spoken as if that's just how the world works or how it is.

(Continued)

(Continued)

It looks like the quotes you referenced aren't from me, or at least not in this thread. Perhaps they were quotes of OzSpen? Regarding modern forensic evidence of which tribes made it out of Egypt, do you have a reverence or a source to point to regarding this theory?

<<my point is that this and other internal Jewish political disputes, need not and should not affect the Christian faith. The list of God's moral commandments as spoken by Jesus, should suffice.>>

The details matter. At least to me they do. Especially since Jesus references the Old Testament many times. So it's not a point of Jewish internal debates, but on the foundations of my own faith. On Christianity. Therefore study on the history, on evidence in forensic or archeological finds, and study of the scriptures and possibly the languages and translations are of merit. The other internal disputes don't matter if they hold no weight behind them.

<<Finally, I wholeheartedly agree with OzSpen: "This issue is not worth breaking fellowship with other Christians." And may I add, not just Christians.>>

Breaking fellow is not my concern. It's about accuracy, and about having a solid foundation. Someone can reason that if others teach a wrong thing to then distance yourself from them and break fellowship. Or they can reason that by staying in touch and in fellowship, you can be a beacon to the truth and lead them in the right direction. I would say that this would depend on the sitution, but fellowship is not my concern in this conversation. It is on having a solid foundation.

To all posters.

We have gone a long way off course from the original article's content by Peter Sellick. I've been part of the going off course.

Why don't we debate/discuss the last paragraph of Sellick's article?

<<Forster worries that since the resurrection is the cornerstone of Christian belief, (I agree) then if it was found not to have happened then the Church will fall. The irony here is that the Church has already fallen. All Nicene denominations that I know of have a critical shortage of priests/ministers who serve smaller and smaller congregations. The Church is spurned by educated men and women because it is presented by Evangelicals as a collection of beliefs that, ironically, do not connect with our experience of the world. These beliefs trail questions behind them too numerous to count. This means that the Church loses its authority because it is plainly irrational. Modern epistemology, applied to biblical texts, produces nonsense and trails unsolvable questions in its wake. The damage to the Church is inestimable.>>

The context of that paragraph outlines a position that belief in the church and church teachings are irrational. That such beliefs do not connect with our experiences and senses. Based on this the argument is that the church has fallen already, not that it will fall if the reserection of Jesus is proven wrong.

However, I would give a counter argument to this. The observation that Christianity hasn't fallen should be enough to reconsider the previous assessment. Perhaps there is more rationality to the teachings, or there is more confirmed through experiences then the assessment concludes saying that it is irrational and does not line up with experiences. Perhaps there is another factor to consider? Either way the conclusion points to the church to have already fallen. But if Christianity and the church haven't fallen, then that shows that the conclusion made a mistake somewhere in it's reasoning.

If looking at the world as "factual" is the downfall of the church, and the outlook of facts spread since the 18th century; then why does Christianity still have enough believers in it to be one of the top religions.

There's something missing in the logic, because the conclusion doesn't fit the observation we have in the world today. The church hasn't fallen. For better or worse (depending on one's views) Christianity and it denominations, still makes it's mark on the world around us,

NNS,

I didn't follow where you were heading in your last reply. Sells' beef is with the Evangelical church of Gospel proclaiming Christianity.

He stated: <<The Church is spurned by educated men and women because it is presented by Evangelicals as a collection of beliefs that, ironically, do not connect with our experience of the world. These beliefs trail questions behind them too numerous to count. This means that the Church loses its authority because it is plainly irrational.>>

So the non-evangelical church is the rational one?

Sells, your own denomination refutes your view that the Church is spurned by educated men and women. The Sydney Diocese is not only the largest but it is thoroughly Evangelical and is not rejected by educated people. Try getting into Moore College, Sydney.

Dr Paul Barnett, former bishop of North Sydney, is an ancient historian and historian of early Christianity. His many publications demonstrate he is thoroughly educated.

The same applies to the late Dr Leon Morris who taught for many years at the Evangelical Anglican Ridley College in Melbourne.

This doesn’t mean all Evangelicals are of the educated class but there are very educated people who are Evangelicals.

The idea that my Evangelical beliefs do not connect with the experience of the world is nonsense. I've been an Evangelical for over 50 years and my Christian world view not only shows the reality of the contemporary world but also enables me to share Jesus compassionately with people and be involved in service to others.

Sells, you claim Evangelical beliefs trail lots of questions. Your Barthian world view prohibits your seeing the importance of the Gospel and the value of a high view of the authority of Scripture.

Seems to me your issues are with the content of Evangelical beliefs vs the modernist/postmodernist theology that empties liberal Anglican churches. It doesn't seem to enter your mind these beliefs are not connecting with the people and they leave Anglican liberal churches in droves.

The shoe’s on the other foot. Liberal Christianity drives people out of the church and also its ministers.

Sells,

<<"It is of first importance to grasp that 'facts', like wigs and snuff boxes, were the invention of the eighteenth century." He meant by this that "facts" only took on importance after the work of the English empiricists Francis Bacon (1561-1626) and John Locke (1632-1704).>>

The Oxford Dictionary online (2019. s.v. fact) provides this definition of a fact, ‘A thing that is known or proved to be true’. So Facts were true long before the English empiricists.

Was it a fact that the English Bishop of London, Nicholas Ridley, revered by Anglicans, was burned at the stake as one of the Oxford Martyrs on 16 October 1555?

Is it factual that the Council of Nicaea was held in AD 325? The Encyclopaedia Britannica’s entry (2019. s.v. Council of Nicaea) is for ‘Council of Nicaea (Definition & Facts), See: http://www.britannica.com/search?query=Council+of+Nicaea.

What? Facts as early as AD 325.

Are Jesus’ death and resurrection facts?

Is the green colour of grass a fact?

Is it factual we live on earth? I live in the greater Brisbane area. Is that a fact? Empiricism is not the only way to determine factuality.

In your article you speak about the rational/irrational. Is it rational to believe that ‘"facts" only took on importance after the work of the English empiricists’ in the 17th century?

You’ve created a straw man. We have facts all around us and they’ve been there since the creation of the heavens and the earth.

Dear OzSpen,

I never claimed that my worldview was biblical.

(actually, I believe that the views of none in this forum, including yours, are biblical, unless someone believed that, based on Joshua, the sun revolves around the earth)

By definition ALL Scripture is God-breathed, yet the question remains, which books/scrolls/chapters/verses are scripture and which aren't, also which books started off as scripture but were subsequently tainted by filthy secular hands.

There's still one possibility, which we cannot prove or disprove, that some God-breathed scripture is non-factual (such as the book of Job which according to Jewish tradition was written by Moses as fiction) or even factually-incorrect - for how can our limited human mind understand the ways of God?

To Sellick's paragraph:

The Church is there to inspire and support those who want to follow Jesus. Its primary role is not to provide information, unless that is practical information on how to follow Jesus. Since there are plenty of other institutions around for disseminating general information, the Church cannot compete on that. Fortunately it does not need to.

Hence, denominations ought to be judged on their success in bringing people to God through Jesus, rather than on the correctness of the information they teach.

---

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

First a few links:
http://simania.co.il/bookdetails.php?item_id=1650
http://simania.co.il/bookdetails.php?item_id=690860
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B009ZSOY78/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_taft_p1_i0
http://lutherwasnotbornagaincom.wordpress.com/2014/06/13/only-the-levites-left-egypt-in-the-exodus

«Christian Faith depends heavily on Jewish faith»

It need not and better not be so, because then Christian faith is vulnerable and undermined whenever we find faults in Jewish faith.

Fortunately it is possible to read/interpret the new-testament in ways that do not depend on Judaism.

What's so great for a Christian bible-believer about the Jewish faith anyway? It prevents Jews from recognising Jesus!

«that not one word from the scriptures will pass away»

"not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from THE LAW until everything is accomplished."

THE LAW! Jesus knew perfectly what the Law is while you're only speculating that it's equivalent to the whole old-testament as we know it today.

Good fellowship is the solid foundation for spiritual endeavour.
What good is rationality if it fails to protect you from sins?

To OzSpen.

My main points were to address the crucial point in that paragraph. (The point that the other points were supporting). That is that "the church has fallen." The way I see it, if the conclusion is wrong, then the leading logic that point to that conclusion must be in error, or missing something of the situation to come to the wrong conclusion.

As far as I can tell the church (in any defination of the term), has't fallen.

Yuyutsu,

<<By definition ALL Scripture is God-breathed, yet the question remains, which books/scrolls/chapters/verses are scripture and which aren't>>

Don't you know the meaning of ALL?

As for which MSS are Scripture, bibliology and textual criticism examine that dimension. The topic of this thread is, 'The origin of facts'.

<<There's still one possibility, which we cannot prove or disprove, that some God-breathed scripture is non-factual (such as the book of Job which according to Jewish tradition was written by Moses as fiction) or even factually-incorrect>>

You provided not one reference or link to demonstrate your point. That is your opinion when you do this.

The OT canon of Scripture was decided before the Council of Jamnia in AD 90. This Council confirmed what had been accepted by the Jews for a long time. Josephus had the same list of book as the Council of Jamnia. His 22 books are our 39 books.

It is difficult to provide an exact date when the Hebrew canon of Scripture was finalised. It probably reached its final form between 400-300 BC. However, conservatively speaking it was completed by 200 BC.

This we do know: The Jews rejected the Apocrypha. See: http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/3671027/jewish/What-Is-the-Jewish-Approach-to-the-Apocrypha.htm

Now let's get back on track. Sells wrote:

<<A good friend of mine once wrote: "It is of first importance to grasp that 'facts', like wigs and snuff boxes, were the invention of the eighteenth century." He meant by this that "facts" only took on importance after the work of the English empiricists>> of 17th century.

I find it impossible to accept that facts, like wigs, were invented as a result English empiricism.

Surely the mountains, valleys, rivers, streams and deserts were facts that existed from the beginning of time.

Is it a fact that the the Eastern and Western churches split in the Great Schism of 1054? The Eastern church became the Greek Orthodox Church when it broke all ties with the western Roman Catholic Church. Eastern Orthodox Church refused to acknowledge the pope as its head. Surely these are facts - long before the 17th century?

Yuyutsu,

<<First a few links: http://simania.co.il/bookdetails.php?item_id=1650
http://simania.co.il/bookdetails.php?item_id=690860>>

I find it offensive that in a post to Not_Now_Soon, on an English forum you provide links to two books in a foreign language.

Are you trying to exalt your superiority in doing this? Do you read the language of these two books?

Dear OzSpen,

Regarding the Jewish view that Job did not exist, but was written by Moses as a fictional fable:
«You provided not one reference or link to demonstrate your point.»

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job_in_rabbinic_literature#Job's_life
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=13&ved=2ahUKEwiy3bK1yYHhAhVYaCsKHdz0BBQQFjAMegQIFhAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.shulcloud.com%2F618%2Fuploads%2FPDFs%2FDivrei_Torah%2Fbehindthebible.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1oej6fx8JV1mo59tXenGZ7

Regarding the referenced books, I told Not_Now.Soon that the books I relied on to form my opinion on the OT are in Hebrew, yet he insisted that I provide him the references anyway, which I did. It is not surprising that these two books which I read were not translated into English because they rely heavily on the subtleties of the original text. Other books by the same authors were translated into English or German and the list is here: http://www.bookdepository.com/author/Yair-Zakovitch
Among these, the book "Jacob", http://www.amazon.com/Jacob-Unexpected-Patriarch-Jewish-Lives/dp/0300144261, has some overlapping materials with the two books I mentioned.

Regarding the origin of facts, nobody in their right mind is denying that facts existed long ago - the question is, when did humans started having the CONCEPT of "fact" and since when this concept became an important or dominant consideration in their decisions. Sellick claims that [in the West] this happened around the 17th century.

To OzSpen.

I asked Yuyutsu to reference the books. Don't take offense, he was only doing what I asked. I explained why earlier to Yuyutsu. Though the books being in Hebrew will deter a conclusion on the author, or the subject matter within the book, it is at least a chance to follow through on some of the points that Yuyutsu believes. As of now much of what he says remains like you've pointed out to be his opinion and his world view. If he can point to sources (when asked) that he stems these perspectives from it at least helps. Those sources might be Hindu articles, or they might be in a different language.

It would be easier to have reasons come from an English source and from a Christian or Jewish scholar when discussing points on Christianity. However this standard of removing one's own faith from their reasoning in a discussion is not a standard I am willing to commit to for myself for those who are atheist or of a different faith. Therefore it is not something I want to make the habit of asking others to do. That said, in an earlier discussion I have told Yuyutsu that I see biblical scripture as an authority, so if he wants to reason with me on the basis of scripture, then Hindu scripture won't be considered any more of an authority, then the opinions and findings of anyone else in the world. Yuyutsu knows where I stand on the matter.

To Yuyutsu.

You said earlier:

<<Fortunately it is possible to read/interpret the new-testament in ways that do not depend on Judaism. What's so great for a Christian bible-believer about the Jewish faith anyway? It prevents Jews from recognising Jesus!>>

I'm not sure you are aware, but there are many philosophies in Christianity that are either doctrine and theology oriented or otherwise views on the world and on behavior. Not all of these perspectives have a solid foundation in their beliefs. For instance, there are dissuasions, debates and different positions within Christianity on salvation, what it means to be saved, and if that can be lost. There are also debates on faith versus works, different interpretations of bible verses, and different stances on sin.

I bring this up because I want to highlight a conclusion that I've found while trying to grabble with a handful of these issues when I was younger and just accepted Christianity. The conclusion is that no matter the topic there's always someone with a counter point, counter argument, and a different position. In order to get through any of that you need to give yourself a good foundation to base your own thoughts on and to test the thoughts of others through. That way the unjustified positions aren't confused as much with the justified positions. Even if a person says they are an expert, and writes an article well having a good foundation is a good first step for filtering through the bs and sifting through what might be possible and reasonable.

(Continued)

(Continued)

For me my two foundations regarding Christian perspectives are what is in the bible, and what is experienced in a person's life. These two foundations should have the authority to correct a person's views and change their perspective. After that everything that isn't outright corrected from those two factors can be counted as a possibility, even if it isn't accepted or rejected.

As to the Jewish faith I would give the same filter as I give Christian perspectives. Test it against what is written in the bible, and what a person experiences in their life. Accepting the Old Testament is not accepting all Jewish disputes and discussions. Just as accepting the new Testament is not accepting all Christian disputes. (For instance I reject Peter's position on miracles completely. God does act in the world today so there's no reason to reject that He gave miracles through Jesus and the prophets as described in the bible). Regarding Christianity depending on Jewish faith, The foundation of the Jewish faith is through the scripture of the Old Testiment. That does not weaken a Christian foundation, but instead strengthens it. Because the Scriptures in the Old Testiment point towards Jesus.

Yuyutsu,

Your second link was to the article by Dr Maurice Mizrahi, 'Behind the Bible'.

Didn't you notice his statement, 'Job (fictional?'. This is not a statement that Job IS fictional but a question about whether it is. It's a question, not an assertion. See: http://images.shulcloud.com/618/uploads/PDFs/Divrei_Torah/behindthebible.pdf.

OT scholar Dr Gleason Archer admitted 'some scholars have questioned the historicity of the whole Book of Job’. He continued, 'Many have speculated that he was a mere fictional character' (Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, Zondervan 1982:235-236).

Archer rejects the fictional understanding because there are ample grounds 'to support the full historicity of both Job himself and the details' in the Book of Job. These are:

1. Job 1:1 states that 'there was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job'. He was a real person in a specific place.

2. References to Job in Ezekiel 14:14 where he is grouped with Noah and Daniel, righteous men. Here Job is as factual as Noah and Daniel.

3. The confrontation of God (Yahweh) with Satan in Job is soundly based, on the same level of Jesus' temptation by Satan (Matthew 4).

4. The linguistic claim of the presence of more Aramaic terms than Hebrew 'is tenuous', i.e. questionable. Commercial relations in North Arabia in Aramaic began ca. 2000 BC. 'The extent of Aramaic influence in Job is overrated’.

See: A. Guilleaume, "The Unity of the Book of Job," Annual of Leeds University Oriental Society 4 (1964): 26-46. He argued there are no demonstrable Aramaisms in the speeches of Elihu (Job 32-37).

Archer concludes: 'There are no tenable grounds for the theory of a fictional job' (1982:236). See James 5:11, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jas+5%3A11&version=NIVUK.

Sells,

You stated:

<<the Church has already fallen. All Nicene denominations that I know of have a critical shortage of priests/ministers who serve smaller and smaller congregations>>

I consider this is stretching a theological view of denominations at Nicaea. This Council was sometimes called an ecumenical council. For us in the 21st century, it means a bringing together of various institutions/denominations.

However, for the early church, the ecumenical councils meant the involvement of Christian leaders from across the Roman Empire.

"Constantine had invited all 1800 bishops of the Christian church (about 1000 in the east and 800 in the west), but only 250 to 320 bishops actually participated. Eusebius of Caesarea counted 250, Athanasius of Alexandria counted 318...." (http://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~rwest/wikispeedia/wpcd/wp/f/First_Council_of_Nicaea.htm)

Which were the Nicene denominations? I don't find language like that used in the fourth century's Council of Nicaea. 'The Church' included bishops from East and West of the Roman Empire but there is no mention of The Roman Catholic Church, Orthodox Church or Anglicans.

Anglicans claim to be associated with the planting of Christianity in England in the 3rd century. Three British bishops were sent to Council of Aires (France) in 314. St Augustine was sent to evangelise a largely pagan community in southern England by Pope Gregory the Great. 'Under King Henry VIII in the 16th century, the Church of England broke with Rome, largely because Pope Clement VII refused to grant Henry an annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon' (Encyclopaedia Britannica, http://www.britannica.com/topic/Anglicanism).

Britannica's article shows that Evangelicals did not contribute to the decline in religious life in the UK in the 18th century: 'Despite impressive reform efforts John Wesley, Charles Simeon, John Newton, and other clergy associated with the Evangelical revival prompted a surge of new religious fervour. Evangelical laity such as William Wilberforce and the Clapham Sect fought slavery and encouraged social reform'.

So what's the problem with a shortage of priests/ministers in mainline denominations? It's not because of the Evangelicals.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

Yes, thank you, I am aware that there are many philosophies within Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism too (http://ocoy.org/dharma-for-christians/the-six-systems-of-hindu-philosophy).

«no matter the topic there's always someone with a counter point»

Yes, because the Truth cannot be confined by words.

Once you attain the shining self-evident, eternal, indestructible, incorruptible and totally-fulfilling ultimate Truth, all arguments will be settled for you and you will be able to explain this truth in so many different ways to so many different people. Yet while your listeners can become inspired by your words, none of them will be able to grasp the Truth that you tell them, because the mind, any mind, does not hold this capacity.

You seem so sincere in your efforts to learn and explore the truth, which is wonderful, and indeed you already had some success when your prayers were answered, but at this stage you still attempt to gather information and no amount of information amounts to actual knowledge.

«As to the Jewish faith I would give the same filter as I give Christian perspectives. Test it against what is written in the bible, and what a person experiences in their life.»

You may be aware that Judaism considers the written bible (Torah) to only be a small portion of the whole Torah, which mostly consists of oral teachings: "Moshe (Moses) received the Torah from [Mount] Sinai and transmitted it to Yehoshua (Joshua), and Yehoshua to the Elders, and the Elders to the Prophets, and the Prophets transmitted it to the Men of the Great Assembly [of Rabbis]." [Pirkei Avot 1:1] http://www.sefaria.org/Pirkei_Avot.1?lang=bi

«Because the Scriptures in the Old Testiment point towards Jesus.»

You may be aware that this claim is highly disputed and apparently torn to shreds by Jewish scholars. It is not my place to side with either, but may I suggest the possibility that had the OT not been tampered with and had those parts which the Jewish leadership didn't like not been censored, then assuming the above is true, there would have been many more and more explicit pointers to Jesus in the OT.

Dear OzSpen,

I am aware of this Rabbinical dispute regarding the book of Job.

Whether fictional or otherwise, the point is that the Rabbis of the Talmud did not scream "Shock, Horror, kill these heretics", nor censored the opinions of those who considered Job to be fiction, nor cried "Alas, our faith is shattered, let us worship the Greek gods instead".

The Rabbis conducted a thorough, civil and rational discussion/investigation on the topic and even while a large majority of them concluded that Job was a real person and a smaller majority that his story was true as well, they did not think that it would be a problem had the bible contained some fictional (yet educational) parts.

To Yuyutsu.

This leads away from the article that Peter wrote. But the topic of truth shouldn't be about an unreachable point of enlightenment. The truth should be something to seek after for real answers and to hold a solid foundation by. In this way it is something for a practical use instead of something too grand to be able to comprehend.

I have ________ experience which opens my eyes to the situations and environment of that experience. At that point that experience can be part of my foundation for the world or for just that specific situation. At that point it doesn't matter if the experience filling in the blank is a medical procedure, or having a broken down car. It's something to learn from and to watch out for in the future so that the small things in that situation don't get over looked and trip you up. And previous misconceptions don't cloud your view. The truth is in the same way as the [fill in the blank] experience. It is something to be part of your foundation for practical use and understanding. It's not a grand scheme of the universe level of "truth" it is the solid ground (however large) you know is not lies or misunderstanding.

(Continued)

(Continued)

As for the Jewish scholars. They can say what they like. Scholars seem to do so and argue amongst themselves about which one is right. Based on that alone it can be noted that to trust in scholars is not a solid foundation for the truth. No, go to the matter itself. See if what they say actually makes sense and is reliable. If not, then don't count it as a foundation that you hold as true. Seeking the truth among other things means to discern what is true from what isn't. It means to investigate and choose a side of the matter that is true and accurate instead of just speculating on a debate you won't enter. Therefore truth is not a form of enlightenment, but something to seek and investigate about.

If you find something reliable to turn to, (like a child has with a parent) then that is something rare and worth holding on to. The foundation from God is like that. Reliable and true. I'll hold the words of God in the Christian and Jewish scriptures at a higher standard of reliability, then the understanding argued by scholars who've studied the material and have wild theories to argue amongst themselves about.

To Yuyutsu.

Two last things to correct. Mplease consider them both so that you're not blinded in misunderstanding and misdirection.

1). My prayers were not answered because of my understanding and knowledge of God. They were answered because God chose to answer them. A few times surprising me by what He does.

2). In spite of the Jewish Scholare, prophets weren't learned men that held a degree of enlightenment. They were chosen by God for a purpose and a message. Some held an office in the temple and were more priestly in their demeaned, others were not. So the claim that the Torah was passed down by mouth to the prophets is rubbish. They were chosen, nothing more nothing less. Nothing anyone can say was earned.

Just for your information. Hope it reaches you and clarifies the views you hold. The truth is good, but God can reach us in spite of us reaching and knowing the truth or not. He can answer prayers and choose ministers for his services without there being a factor of enlightenment involved.

Also if you read the Old Testament and the New Testiment, the Old does point to Jesus as detailed in the New. It's not a matter of scholarly dispute. Just read it and see for yourself.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

«1). My prayers were not answered because of my understanding and knowledge of God.»

No, but the sincerity in your efforts to learn and explore the truth helped your chances for God to choose to answer your prayers. In the least, it allowed you to recognise it when your prayers were answered.

«So the claim that the Torah was passed down by mouth to the prophets is rubbish.»

Please don't shoot the messenger, I was only reporting what orthodox Judaism believes in, thus why your suggestion could not be applied, that: "As to the Jewish faith I would give the same filter as I give Christian perspectives. Test it against what is written in the bible". Orthodox Rabbis already claim openly that some of the actual Torah differs slightly from the literal reading of the pentateuch, yet that this was God's original intention which He then transmitted to Moses. Jesus must have also been aware of this view.

There's a Jewish sect, the Karaites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karaite_Judaism) who similarly believe that the Jewish oral tradition is rubbish. However, they were excommunicated and very few remain.

«God can reach us in spite of us reaching and knowing the truth or not»

Definitely. In any case, information does not amount to knowledge. There can be information without knowledge as well as knowledge without information.

«the topic of truth shouldn't be about an unreachable point of enlightenment.»

Truth is not a topic. Truth is real even if one cannot understand it: nobody does anyway because the mind cannot fathom Truth. Yet your heart can love the Truth and if you do, then you start with practical little things such as "Yes, I stole the milk", through "Yes, I molested these two choir-boys" and as you persist with unwavering honesty, eventually you end up with the ultimate Truth, God.

[continued...]

[...continued]

«The foundation from God is like that. Reliable and true.»

Absolutely.

«I'll hold the words of God in the Christian and Jewish scriptures at a higher standard of reliability»

The question remains, how can one tell which words within what is commonly considered as scripture, are indeed the words of God.

A more intriguing question is, even if a given verse contains the words of God, does it necessarily mean that it represents a physical or historical reality? Not necessarily so because God can work in mysterious ways.

I will not go into the NT as I do not consider myself knowledgeable enough, but extensive research by Jewish scholars shows that the books of the OT were tampered with. Again and again I stress: this is no grounds to shatter your Christian faith - I pray that your faith remains strong. Trust in God, even if you cannot trust books. Worship God, through Jesus if you are a Christian, not the books.

«if you read the Old Testament and the New Testiment, the Old does point to Jesus as detailed in the New.»

There is no need to engage with this scholarly dispute or to decide on this question, because even if this is the case, it only refers to a few verses; and even if those verses are God-inspired, this does not imply that all the text around them also is.