Fake theology?

Which one currently in vogue or practise, isn't!?
Alan B.

Never mind that mainstream institutional christian "theology" has nothing whatsoever to do with the Understanding of nor the Realization of Truth, Reality & The Beautiful.
Indeed it actively prevents even the possibility of such Understanding & Realization.
Such is of course the legacy of "paul, whoever he was.

These essays explain why:
http://www.aboutadidam.org/articles/secret_identity
http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/jesusandme.html

This essay describes the individual and collective self-serving narcissism of conventional institutional "religion.
http://www.dabase.org/up-1-6.htm

Thank you Spencer

You are spot on Spencer. The message of the cross is the gospel. Certainly the misuse of Jeremiah 29:11 is one that is commonly used by 'contemporary' teachers/preachers. On the same token John 3:16 is not complete without the next few verses.

(Joh 3:18) He who believes on Him is not condemned, but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God.

(Joh 3:19) And this is the condemnation, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the Light, because their deeds were evil.

sums it up fairly precisely.

Daffy Duck,

<<Never mind that mainstream institutional christian "theology" has nothing whatsoever to do with the Understanding of nor the Realization of Truth, Reality & The Beautiful.>>

Now would you please address the topic about which I wrote?

runner,

You are correct that the fuller context surrounding John 3:16 provides a better understanding of just the one verse.

However, I find it disturbing that young adults have not been educated or discipled in basic truths of the Gospel and reject them. Their replacement eisegesis (reading one's ideas into) of the text of Jeremiah 29:11 creates false teaching.

How many of us who love the Lord Jesus are prepared to discuss with Bible teachers their false understanding of Jeremiah 29:11 if and when it is preached in our churches?

But my first posting did address the contents and thrust of your essay - and very directly too.

Meanwhile speaking of false "theology" and the applied politics and "culture" that inevitably extends from it why not read the essay by John Feffer titled Trump and the Global Rise of the Christian Right

'However, I find it disturbing that young adults have not been educated or discipled in basic truths of the Gospel and reject them. Their replacement eisegesis (reading one's ideas into) of the text of Jeremiah 29:11 creates false teaching.'

Hi Ozspen

It is a little unfair to generalise although the 'Gods got a plan for your life message ' does have some merit if taught in the right context. His Word is a light until our path and a light unto our feet. That plan may well include persecution and the giving away of possessions that hold so many of us. At the end of the day God will sort out the wheat and weeds

runner,

<< the 'Gods got a plan for your life message ' does have some merit if taught in the right context.>>

I agree, but not by reefing Jeremiah 29:11 out of context and make it mean what is does not mean.

This verse provides a glimpse into God's plan for Christians:

'Don’t change yourselves to be like the people of this world, but let God change you inside with a new way of thinking. Then you will be able to understand and accept what God wants for you. You will be able to know what is good and pleasing to him and what is perfect' (Romans 12:2 ERV).

I agree that God's plan may / will involve persecution but we have this assurance from Jesus himself:

'If the world hates you, remember that they hated me first. If you belonged to the world, the world would love you as it loves its own people. But I have chosen you to be different from those in the world. So you don’t belong to the world, and that is why the world hates you.

“Remember the lesson I told you: Servants are not greater than their master. If people treated me badly, they will treat you badly too. And if they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours too. They will do to you whatever they did to me, because you belong to me. They don’t know the one who sent me' (John 15:18-21 ERV).

If I were you, I would be happy letting Christian Fundamentalists continue along their merry path.
as it transpires, fundamentalism in its many forms, is the last useful cannon on the hill, firing effectively at secularism and its global warming elite.

Dan

Accusing a theologian of promulgating "fake theology" is like accusing Peter Brock of speeding at Bathurst.

Theology is like groping around in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there, and shouting "I found it!"

JBSH,

<<Accusing a theologian of promulgating "fake theology" is like accusing Peter Brock of speeding at Bathurst. >>

In my article, which theologian did I accuse of promoting false theology?

<<Theology is like groping around in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there, and shouting "I found it!">>

To the contrary, the word 'theology' comes from two Greek words, theos + logos, which means the message or study of God. It is a human attempt to understand God as He has revealed Himself in Scripture and creation. It will never be a perfect discipline because it is trying to explain in human terms, the infinite God and his eternal attributes.

We know from Romans 11:33-36 that anyone who tries to describe God is not looking in a dark room for a wild cat, but is trying to explain in human terms the Almighty God. See: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rom+11%3A33-36&version=ERV

Theology is the art (not a precise science) of knowing God through what He has revealed to us. Basic biblical theology is foundational to true Christianity as it is the teaching of God's word.

.

Dear Spencer (the author),

.

You ask :

« Does it occur to these researchers and the Millennials that they replaced the centre of Christianity with a bogus doctrine? »
.

You indicate in your brief bio at the bottom of this article on OLO that you are, inter alia, a Christian minister, but there is no mention of the particular Christian denomination to which you belong. A Christian denomination, is, of course, defined as a distinct religious body within Christianity, identified by traits such as a name, organization, leadership and doctrine.

Though there is no consensus among experts as to just exactly how many different Christian denominations there are in the world today, most estimates put them in the tens of thousands, give or take a few thousand. Whichever way you look at it, that makes tens of thousands of distinct Christian doctrines.

Seen in this context, your question (and that of Laura Fitzpatrick, whom you quote) is not surprising. Irrespective of whether you, or Laura, actually chose your particular Christian denomination or, like most of us, were simply endowed with it as part and parcel of your cultural inheritance, it is perfectly understandable that you tend to consider its “distinct doctrine” as being at “the centre of “Christianity” as you know it.

Perhaps the question one should ask oneself is why there are so many “distinct doctrines” within Christianity ? How can that be ? What justification is there for so many differences ? Why is each denomination convinced that its particular doctrine is at "the centre of Christianity" ?

I have often seen it suggested that the English word “religion” derives from the Latin “religare”, “to bind”. At the same time, I have observed that the exact opposite is also true. Religion separates, divides and opposes. Some doctrine is dogma and dogma is inflexible, uncompromising and intolerant.

Cicero provides a different version of its origin : The treatises of M.T. Cicero On the nature of the gods, …/literally translated … by C.D. Yonge. (Bohn’s classical library) 1853, book 2, section 28, page 71

.

Banjo,

I've observed some of your habits in responding to religious topics on OLO. You've done it again with your narrative here:

<<You indicate in your brief bio at the bottom of this article on OLO that you are, inter alia, a Christian minister, but there is no mention of the particular Christian denomination to which you belong>>

My topic had nothing to do with my denomination or the many Christian denominations in the world. By the way, are you aware of the many denominations/sects within Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and the 'no religion' category?

Instead, you give us your your beefs with Christianity. It's a red herring!

.

Dear OzSpen,

.

Many thanks for your response. I appreciate it.

As you may have noticed, I have never had the honour of receiving a response to any of my comments from your Anglican deacon colleague, Peter Sellick, who has been publishing his monthly sermons on OLO for the past 17 years.

You indicate :

« My topic had nothing to do with my denomination or the many Christian denominations in the world »

Well, you did write :

« The replacement for Millennials (aged 21-37) is Jeremiah 29:11, "'For I know the plans I have for you,' declares the Lord, 'plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future'" »

You also went to some length to describe what you claim to be “millennial fake theology”, concluding with the question :

« Does it occur to these researchers and the Millennials that they replaced the centre of Christianity with a bogus doctrine? »

So there you have it : “a distinct religious body within Christianity, identified by traits such as a name, organization, leadership and doctrine” – a distinct Christian denomination, movement or group ? Call it what you will.

That said, if, as you now state : “my topic had nothing to do with my denomination or the many Christian denominations in the world”, what exactly are you referring to when you compare the Christian doctrine of the millennials – which you consider to be “bogus” – to [something] at “the centre of Christianity” ?

Is neither your own Christian denomination’s doctrine, nor that of some other Christian denomination, at the centre of Christianity ? If not, what exactly is it, in your view, that the millennials’ “bogus doctrine” is replacing at the centre of Christianity ?

Naively, I felt you were simply preaching in favour of your own Christian denomination’s doctrine.

However, the crux of the matter, in my view, is “belief”, on which stands all religion and all doctrine – whether religious or otherwise.

Let's face it, there's nothing, in this world, more subjective than belief.

.

Banjo,

I appreciate your interaction and hope we can go somewhere with it.

It's true that I asked in my article, 'Does it occur to these researchers and the Millennials that they replaced the centre of Christianity with a bogus doctrine?

Your reply was:

<<So there you have it : “a distinct religious body within Christianity, identified by traits such as a name, organization, leadership and doctrine” – a distinct Christian denomination, movement or group ? Call it what you will.>>

No, I don't have it! You've jumped from my question about the centre of Christianity to bogus doctrine as your understanding I'm talking about a religious body that has 'a name, organization, leadership and doctrine” – a distinct Christian denomination'.

Sadly, that's your false assumption. It was Rev Dr Peter Phillips of the Research Centre at Durham University who stated, 'Whereas once John 3:16 was the "poster-boy" text of the 20th century'. He regarded it as a 'poster-boy' text for Christianity in the 20th century. He was not discussing any particular denomination. Neither was I.

<<What exactly are you referring to when you compare the Christian doctrine of the millennials – which you consider to be “bogus” – to [something] at “the centre of Christianity” ?>>

I'm referring to all Christians who proclaim the centre of Christianity, which we celebrate every Easter - the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ for the sins of the world. That's what John 3:16-18 highlights. It's the crux of Christianity, no matter what denomination. See: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+3%3A16-18&version=NL

The bogus is the feel-good Millennial false interpretation of Jeremiah 29:11 replacing the Gospel of God's good news (John 3:16).

.

Dear OzSpen,

.

If I understand you correctly, you deplore that those Christians who are “Millennials”, i.e., in the age bracket 21-37yrs, have developed their own distinctive Christian doctrine by placing Jeremiah 29:11 (instead of John 3:16-18) at the centre of Christianity.

You emphasise that your article is devoted solely to the theological signification of this particular innovation which you qualify as a “false interpretation of Jeremiah 29:11” and a “bogus Christian doctrine”. It does not address the intractable prospect of further major schisms within Christendom, which, in this instance, involves a generation of devout Christians in the prime of their lives.

If that is, indeed, the point you are making, I think it is still true to say that the crux of the matter is “belief”. All religion and all doctrine (including dogma) stand on belief and belief alone – call it faith or conviction if you like.

The fact remains that neither belief, faith nor conviction are objective realities – until proven otherwise. They are subjective hypotheses. Metamorphosis from belief to reality requires good solid evidence.

Perceptions can be delusive, especially when core beliefs are at stake. Our mind constructs the reality we perceive.

Allow me to suggest that this is an important factor to be taken into consideration when embarking on the perilous task of judging the value, not only of other people’s beliefs, faiths convictions and interpretations but also, and should I say, especially, your own – including those which you obviously hold dear and consider, rightly or wrongly, to be at the centre of the pantheon of Christianity.

.

Banjo,

<<If I understand you correctly, you deplore that those Christians who are “Millennials”,>>

Nowhere in the article did I state or infer that. I have a number of Christian friends who are Millennials. The issue at stake was banishing John 3:16-18 for a false interpretation of Jeremiah 29:11, a verse that was for the Israelites and not Christians.

<< I think it is still true to say that the crux of the matter is “belief”. All religion and all doctrine (including dogma) stand on belief and belief alone – call it faith or conviction if you like. The fact remains that neither belief, faith nor conviction are objective realities – until proven otherwise. They are subjective hypotheses>>

Yes, faith is involved. So is faith to know I can take the tilt train from Brisbane to Bundaberg, Qld.

You have made this kind of presuppositional error about Christianity and other belief systems in a number of your posts. My Christian faith is NOT built on faith that is not objective.

How you describe faith is a leap of faith into the unknown that has yet to be proven. That is not the Christian faith I have. My faith is based on the truths of:

+ God's existence, made evident in the world He created (see Romans 1:18-20);

+ The fact of Jesus Christ's life, death and bodily resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:1-11);

+ The fact that both the Old Testament and New Testament have been demonstrated to be reliable historical documents.

+ The fact of human lives being radically changed through being born again (born from above) - John 3:3-8;

+ The spread of Christianity worldwide, not based on a subjective faith, but faith with its foundation in facts.

.

Dear OzSpen,

.

Thank you for sharing your intimate convictions with me.

I note with interest your concepts of “objective” and “truth”. For the sake of clarity and mutual comprehension, here is my understanding of these terms :

Objective :

Not dependent on the mind for existence; actual (OED)

Truth :

I see truth as information which has not been voluntarily deformed at the time of emission. Or, should I say, it is whatever version of reality, thought, ideas, qualia, dreams, or imagination, a particular individual is capable of experiencing and subsequently transmitting without voluntarily deforming it.

This, of course, does not exclude the involuntary deformation of information concerning the object of truth. The information that is emitted by somebody may be totally erroneous but perfectly truthful.

There are as many truths as there are observers and each one may be completely different from all the others, though each observer may be telling the truth from his or her particular perspective. I see truth as a perfectly subjective notion.

Our initial perspective may be false. We may incorrectly interpret what we perceive. Shock or prejudice may prevent us from correctly registering what we perceive. We may suffer a lapse of memory at the time of transmitting the information. We may not employ the correct expressions or be sufficiently precise in relaying the information. Our body language may be inconsistent with our oral expression, etc. All these and many other factors may possibly result in the involuntary deformation concerning the object of truth.

The star we claim to see may have disappeared from the heavens millions of years ago. That does not alter the fact that we are telling the truth in claiming to see it. The reality is different.
.

Naturally, I respect your beliefs. I note, however, that the historicity of the bible remains a highly controversial subject – for various reasons, not the least of which is the simple fact that no ancient written autograph of the bible has ever been found. The earliest one found of a major historical figure is El Cid from 1098.

.

Banjo,

Where do you go for your interpretation of 'objective'? It means <<Not dependent on the mind for existence; actual (OED)>>, from the Oxford English Dictionary.

You left out parts of the OED definition: Objective means '(of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts' (Oxford Living Dictionaries 2019. s.v. objective).

So objective is the opposite of subjective and does not deal with 'personal feelings or opinions'.

Instead of going to the dictionary for a definition of ‘truth’, you depend on your subjective opinion: <<I see truth as information which has not been voluntarily deformed at the time of emission'.>>

Oxford Living Dictionary (online) definitions of 'truth' include:

(1) 'The quality or state of being true';

(2) 'That which is true or in accordance with fact or reality';

(3) 'A fact or belief that is accepted as true' (Oxford Living Dictionary 2019. s.v. truth).

'Truth' in the Greek NT, based on 'aletheia,' means:

(a) 'The sense of reality in contrast to falsehood or mere appearance' (Brown, 1978, 3:978)

(b) 'Truthfulness, dependability, uprightness in thought and deed.... generally, tell the truth.... especially of the content of Christianity as the absolute truth.... reality as opposed to mere appearance' (Bauer, Arndt & Gingrich Lexicon 1957:35).

(c) 'Non-concealment…. A matter or state to the extent that it is seen, indicated or expressed.... It denotes the "full or real state of affairs”.... As in judicial language, the aletheia is the actual state of affairs' (Kittel 1964. 1.238).

When applied to Jesus in John 14:6, Jesus says, “I am ultimate reality. I am the root of what was, what is, what will come, I am the foundation of all that is genuine, factual and real in the world. Everything flows from Me.”

NT Greek uses truth in two fundamental senses, (1) Truth as opposed to lies, and (2) That which conforms to reality.

<<There are as many truths as there are observers and each one may be completely different from all the others>>

That's your postmodern presupposition; it is not the actual or biblical nature of truth.

.

Dear OzSpen,

.

You ask :

« Where do you go for your interpretation of 'objective'? »

You will recall that I first explained : “For the sake of clarity and mutual comprehension, here is my understanding of these terms” before quoting the OED definition N° 1.1 for the word “objective” as follows :

« 1.1 Not dependent on the mind for existence; actual »

Here is the link :

http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/objective

Perhaps I should add that I consider that everybody has the right to employ whatever definition suits him for any particular term within a particular context – provided he indicates clearly exactly what that definition is. If no specific definition is indicated then one should refer to whichever meaning appears most appropriate among the various conventional senses of the word as indicated by a reputable dictionary, encyclopedia or other generally accepted authority.

Dictionaries often indicate several different meanings for the same word depending on the context and on the idea which the author wishes to convey. By choosing one of the dictionary definitions, the author rests within the conventional scope of the word – which is what I have done here.
.

I trust that the forgoing explanation also clarifies my thoughts on personal definitions such as the one I provided here for the word “truth”.

I read with interest all those definitions for “truth” you indicated but there was one I was hoping to find that was not there. I’m sure you will recall John 14:6 “Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me”.

That's double Dutch to me. No special definition is provided. Nor does that particular usage of the words “way”, “truth” and “life” appear to be in any of the reputable dictionaries I have consulted.

I can understand Jesus’ deception on the cross when he finally woke up to reality and realised that he whom, all his life, he had been led to believe was his “father”, had forsaken him. What a terrible tragedy that must have been :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=10&v=v0nmHymgM7Y

.

Banjo,

You missed what I wrote about the biblical definition of truth - aletheia - when I applied it to John 14:6, “I am ultimate reality. I am the root of what was, what is, what will come, I am the foundation of all that is genuine, factual and real in the world. Everything flows from Me.”

<<No special definition is provided [in John 14:6]. Nor does that particular usage of the words “way”, “truth” and “life” appear to be in any of the reputable dictionaries I have consulted.>>

You won’t find theological understandings of Jesus as the way, truth and life in secular dictionaries. You need exegetical word studies.

John's Gospel shows Jesus as the way to eternal life, the truth to the reality of what exists, and living with hope in the present.

<<all his life, he had been led to believe was his “father”, had forsaken him. What a terrible tragedy that must have been . >>

‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’ (Matt 27:45-47) is not the cry of one who experiences ‘terrible tragedy’. You don’t seem to understand the darkness during this time of crucifixion ‘from noon until three’ (v. 45) Jesus suffered indescribable agonies.

It cannot mean that God the Father stopped loving the Son, nor that Jesus rejected his Father. During the darkness, Jesus suffered excruciating pain because he was ‘made sin’ for humanity (2 Cor 5:21), became ‘a curse for us’ (Gal 3:13); ‘the iniquity of us all’ was laid on Him (Isa 53:6), and ‘he was despised and rejected—a man of sorrows, acquainted with deepest grief. We turned our backs on him and looked the other way. He was despised, and we did not care’ (Isa 53:3.

We put him through that pain.

That’s the cost Jesus paid for atonement that covers all our sins — intentional, unintentional, atrocious, or trivial.

Until you get a handle on the enormity of our sins and the need for forgiveness, you won’t understand Jesus’ cry from the cross, ‘My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?’

.

Dear OzSpen,

.

Yes. Sorry about that. I was a bit pressed for time and missed your reference to the ancient Greek notion of aletheia understood as “truth” or “disclosure”. Thank you for your exegesis of John 14:6. It certainly makes more sense.

As for the significance of Matt 27:45-47, your interpretation is obviously dictated by the a priori belief in the existence of a deity and the assumed filial relation of Jesus to that entity.

While I consider that the Jesus of the bible probably did exist, that he was baptized by John the Baptist and crucified on the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate, and that he had been led to believe all his life that he was “the son of God”, I see no evidence to prove the existence of anything that corresponds to the concept of a deity.

Hence my deep-felt compassion for Jesus of Nazareth whose sacrifice was a terrible tragedy, not just physically but, above all, morally. Alone and abandoned on the cross, he was finally confronted with the aletheia of his existence.

That said, it may, perhaps, be considered that, at least, he had the unique “privilege” of learning the truth just before he finally succumbed to his agony. Though it is no consolation, it is, nevertheless, more than the Church allows its most fervent zealots who die with the firm conviction that they are about to accede to eternal life.

They are denied the aletheia that Jesus earned so dearly on the cross.

.

Banjo,

Concerning Jesus Christ, you said: << I see no evidence to prove the existence of anything that corresponds to the concept of a deity.>>

That's because of your a priori view that the Scriptures are not accurate or God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16-17). The God-breathes Scriptures state:

+ 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made' (John 1:1-3).

+ '“And when they climbed into the boat, the wind died down. Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, ‘Truly you are the Son of God.’” (Matthew 14:32-33). In Jewish culture, the only one to be worshipped is the one true God.

+ "Very truly I tell you,’ Jesus answered, ‘before Abraham was born, I am!’ At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds" (John 8:58-59). In John 10:33 it explained why Jews wanted to stone Jesus: "We are not stoning you for any good work,’ they replied, ‘but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God'".

You are myopic if you read the NT and do not see that Jesus was God, the deity. You have your anti-deity filtering device running full throttle.

Banjo,

<<Perhaps I should add that I consider that everybody has the right to employ whatever definition suits him for any particular term within a particular context – provided he indicates clearly exactly what that definition is. If no specific definition is indicated then one should refer to whichever meaning appears most appropriate among the various conventional senses of the word as indicated by a reputable dictionary, encyclopedia or other generally accepted authority.>>

So that makes you a relativist in terms of your value system. You can pick and choose the value that's right for you, as long as you define it.

Do you understand the logical consequences of this view? You need to give the same liberty to the paedophile, thief and HIV carrier.

.

Dear OzSpen,

.

You commented :

« You are myopic if you read the NT and do not see that Jesus was God, the deity. You have your anti-deity filtering device running full throttle »

I do not have an “anti-deity filtering device”, OzSpen. My mind is wide open to any good solid evidence testifying to the existence of an entity corresponding to the concept of a deity.

My understanding is that the biblical texts were written nearly 2,000 years ago for the New Testament and well over 2,000 years ago for the Old Testament, by people who claim to have been inspired by a monotheistic deity whom they never encountered and were incapable of describing in any detail. That does not qualify as good solid evidence in my humble opinion.

As I indicated on a previous occasion, I respect your beliefs, but I, personally, am not prepared to have blind faith in texts that are several generational – more or less faithful – copies of original ancestral manuscripts whose authors claim to have been inspired by some hypothetical deity whom they never encountered and were incapable of describing in any detail.

I consider that the question of the existence of a deity is far too important to be treated lightly. For such a monumental question it is totally unreasonable to accept as perfectly accurate and “God-breathed” (as you affirm), the multi-generational copy of the bible which is the only version available to us today.

Even if we disposed of the autographs themselves, for all intents and purposes, their value as testimony would be negligible due to the fact that they were written (or dictated) by devout religious individuals already gained to the cause.

Solid evidence, for a matter of this importance, should consist in a rate of concordance of at least 90% between the versions of two totally and indisputably independent, perfectly valid non-religious sources.

.

.

Dear OzSpen,

.

You quoted my explanation of word definition and commented :

« So that makes you a relativist in terms of your value system. You can pick and choose the value that's right for you, as long as you define it. Do you understand the logical consequences of this view? You need to give the same liberty to the paedophile, thief and HIV carrier »

As I indicated in the post to which you refer, dictionaries indicate the conventional, usual or common meanings of a word so that we can all understand each other when no specific meaning is provided by the person who employs it.

But dictionaries do not invent new words, nor do they add additional meanings to existing words or simply change their meanings altogether. The team of experts who compile them, revise and up-date them, keep their eyes and ears peeled to find out what is going on around them. They detect, capture and measure the frequency of change and evolution including the birth of new words and the death of old words.

It is not the dictionaries that attribute meaning to words, modify words and invent new words. We, the users, do : poets, writers, scientists, philosophers, politicians, tradesmen, publicists, jurists, street artists, hooligans, gangsters, etc.

And yes, even the paedophile, thief and HIV carrier dispose of the same liberty. Everyone does, without exception.

.

Banjo,

<<My understanding is that the biblical texts were written nearly 2,000 years ago for the New Testament and well over 2,000 years ago for the Old Testament, by people who claim to have been inspired by a monotheistic deity whom they never encountered and were incapable of describing in any detail. That does not qualify as good solid evidence in my humble opinion.>>

What are your qualifications as an historian examining historical evidence of MSS? What tests are applied to MSS discovered a couple hundred years after the autographs?

<<Even if we disposed of the autographs themselves, for all intents and purposes, their value as testimony would be negligible due to the fact that they were written (or dictated) by devout religious individuals already gained to the cause.>>

Why must you continually use fallacious reasoning. Here you've done it again by committing a Genetic Logical Fallacy: http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/99/Genetic-Fallacy.

You made your argument against the reliability of Bible MSS, based on the fact that they 'were written (or dedicated) by devout religious individuals'.

You didn't evaluate the argument itself, or the history of the argument but you branded it as false because of its origin - devoutly religious people wrote them.

Are you going to brand the history of James Cook as not viable because it was written by historians who had a commitment to the historical investigation of James Cook?

You engaged in erroneous reasoning.