jesus knows no bible

format_quote Originally Posted by kidcanman

christians have told me that the bible can be viewed as a "factual account of events" due to the collaboration of eye witnesses.

but my question is:

WHO WAS IT that decided that the collection of writings labeled bible are all "inspired".

jesus did not speak of a collection of "inspired" writings.

there is 1 passage in the bible that reads "all scripture is inspired" (or something close). however THAT PASSAGE IS IN THE OLD TESTAMENT and can be interpreted "only that which is inspired is scripture". anyhow it is a general statement.

That passage is actually in the New Testament, we have several of those kinds of passages actually:

'All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.' II Timothy 3: 16-17.

And here Peter says:

'Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.' II Peter 1: 20-21.

format_quote Originally Posted by kidcanman

ive heard somewhere about holy men of god being moved to write...

this is a single, general, statement.
there is no mention of the bible or bible writers in this statement.
nowhere is it implied that this statement is refering to "all" the biblical writings.

so again the biblican events are collaborated by eyewitnesses and thus can be viewed as factual.

but jesus does not reference the bible or its writers by name as being inspired. nor does the bible reference the bible or its writers by name as being inspired.

so who made the decision that the collection of writings labeled "bible" are inspired and why did they make that decision?

Jesus actually quotes from the Old Testament in numerous places in the Gospels, to prove certain doctrines, or even his being the Messiah:

'And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.'

Luke 24: 44.

Many times Jesus quotes from the Old Testament to make such statements or to prove a doctrine. And as I've shown, both Paul and Peter attest that all scripture is given by inspiration of God, this would also include the New Testament. So yes, Jesus upheld the position that the scriptures were the inspired Word of God.

this is a single, general, statement.
there is no mention of the bible or bible writers in this statement.
nowhere is it implied that this statement is refering to "all" the biblical writings.

Where is this statement from?

there is 1 passage in the bible that reads "all scripture is inspired" (or something close). however THAT PASSAGE IS IN THE OLD TESTAMENT and can be interpreted "only that which is inspired is scripture". anyhow it is a general statement.

This proves you've either never read the Bible, or read it some time sixty years ago.

so who made the decision that the collection of writings labeled "bible" are inspired and why did they make that decision?

Well I guess the Jews made the decision to include the books about Abraham, Moses and the Prophets because they consider such figures integral to their religion. Christians chose their canon because the stories of Jesus are (unsurprisingly) important to any God fearing Christian, and the letters and acts of early Christians were also important.

fedos
i have learned from you that jesus made reference to old testament writings. and it can be argued that we can identify those writings. and it can be argued that many people have testified that jesus made such a statement. so the case for the old testament is closed.

and timothy 3:16 may not be in the old testament but it is an account of a story in which THE SPEAKER IS SURELY NOT REFERENCING HIS OWN STORY AS SCRIPTURE but rather he is speaking of old testament writings.

and again in the quote from peter it states that "PROPHECY CAME IN OLD TIMES". that quote is not referencing the story in which it is being quoted.

so did jesus or anybody reference the new testament as being inspired.

supreme
i, like most people including most christians, have only read parts of the bible.
the statement "all scripture is inspired..." is taken from a writing in which the speaker is clearly not referencing the writing of his own story. and in fact the speaker is not referencing the new testament because it did not exist in its current form at the time.

i know that christians chose stories that are important to them, but my question is. from what i have heard jesus never referenced the new testament. actually nobody with divine authority EVER mentioned that the writings of the new testament are from god as far as i know.

so who was it that made that decision.

format_quote Originally Posted by kidcanman

so did jesus or anybody reference the new testament as being inspired.

And what would it mean if they had? It would have just been a case of claiming something for itself. That doesn't prove it is so, either.


The Qur'an isn't inspired because Muhammad said so -- hundreds of other people from Joseph Smith to people publishing their latest dreams on the internet have made similar claims -- you believe it is inspired for reasons beyond that it says it is. Likewise, we consider the NT inspired for reasons beyond merely a prooftext in the middle of it saying that it is. It isn't because Paul tells Timothy that the scriptures are inspired; it isn't even because Jesus used the Old Testament passages and treated them as the divine word of God. The primary reason that we accept the scriptures as inspired is because we believe we see the work of the Holy Spirit present in making the revelation of Jesus Christ known to us and in the community which passed this message on to us.

from what i have heard jesus never referenced the new testament

If Jesus referenced books that would be written up to forty yeats after His ascension, then people of the time would have been slightly worried as to His wellbeing.

actually nobody with divine authority EVER mentioned that the writings of the new testament are from god as far as i know.

Who do you mean by 'divine authority'?

format_quote Originally Posted by kidcanman

supreme
actually nobody with divine authority EVER mentioned that the writings of the new testament are from god as far as i know.

Well, actually...

Peter did write this: "our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him." (2 Peter 3:15)

Paul wrote: "God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles." (Galatians 2:8)


John wrote: "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ." (1 John 1:1-3)



So, Peter and Paul each testify that the ministry of the other one is from God. And John testifies that what he writes about is first-hand information. And as a part of that first-hand account he shares that Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit: "When he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth." (John 16:13) And that presence of the Spirit guiding the disciples and the rest of the Church is why we say that the product of their writings is inspired.

format_quote Originally Posted by Al-manar

Someone here seems,not aware yet of how controversal the Authorship of the Johannine works(and other NT writings as well) is ..!!


there is the basic introduction,and more in the right time...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors...ohannine_works

Someone here seems not aware how questionable wikipedia is as an academic source. But let's actually examine what even it says:

The phraseology of the first letter of John is very similar to that of the fourth gospel, so that the question of authorship is often connected to the question of authorship of the gospel.

the Gospel was known in Antioch before Ignatius' death (probably 107).

The earliest testimony to the author was that of Papias....

Irenaeus's witness based on Papias represents the tradition in Ephesus, where John the Apostle is reputed to have lived. Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, thus in the second generation after the apostle. He states unequivocally that the apostle is the author of the Gospel.

In favor of the historical and eyewitness character of the Gospel, a few passages are pointed to. John's chronology for the death of Jesus seems more realistic.... Schonfield agrees that the Gospel was the product of the Apostle's great age, but further identifies him as the Beloved Disciple of the Last Supper, and so believes that the Gospel is based on first hand witness, though decades later and perhaps through the assistance of a younger follower and writer, which may account for the mixture of Hebraicisms (from the Disciple) and Greek idiom (from the assistant).

Fredriksen sees the Fourth Gospel's unique explanation for Jesus' arrest and crucifixion as the most historically plausible: "The priests' motivation is clear and commonsensical: 'If we let [Jesus] go on.... the Romans will come and destroy both our holy place and our nation.' Caiaphas continues, 'It is expedient that one man should die for the people, that the whole nation not perish' (John 11:48,50)

All of this from the link that you provided to prove the counterpoint.


What Wiki fails to mention is that just a Irenaeus (who "states unequivocally that the apostle is the author of the Gospel") was a student of Polycarp, so too Polycarp was a disciple of John the Apostle. Irenaeus' testimony is that he learned from Polycarp that Polycarp heard John identify himself as the author of the gospel in question. In fact recalls that in his youth he used to sit in Polycarp's house and listen to him discourse about his intercourse with Joh and others who had seen the Lord. Consequently, when Irenaeus declares categorically that after the publication of the other Gospels John also wrote his, while he was dwelling in Ephesus, it is to be assumed that he is giving no other view of the authorship of the Fourth Gospel than that which he inherited fro a disciple of John himself.

Thus, I believe we have what, if we were talking about a student of a companion of the Prophet, would be known in Islamic circles as very strong support for the Haddith.

If Irenaeus is in error and misunderstood Polycarp's testimony, and if, as some of the other authors that Wiki cites claim, the early church never did believe John to be the author of the Gospel, then we are left with three very interesting problems:
1) why did they allow this apellation of Johanine authorship to be applied in the first place?
and
2) why did they not bother to correct Irenaeus?
and
3) when Irenaeus in later life promulgated this supposedly unfounded statement that the rest of the church allegedly knew was not true, why did they in fact believe him -- in both the East AND the West? This included such notable figures as Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian who agree that John the Apostle was the author.


Reflecting on the authorship of John, Professor Evertt Harrison writes:

In summery, the external testimony [in favor of John the Apostle] is strong. Some are troubled that it does not begin at an earlier point, but this would be damaging only if earlier testimony existed that pointed to another than John.....

Today it is customary to concede the strength of the traditional position in so far as it depends on ancient testimony, but to hold that it is counterbalanced by what the Gospel itself has to tell us about the writer.

So, let's look at these internal issues. One of these issues is that John looks at the life of Jesus differently than the other three gospels. (For myself, I find it strange that this is cited at all, as some of these same people cite the converse when writing about Matthew, Mark and Luke that they are too much alike. And seek to counter them by appealing to writings such as the Gospel of Thomas for an alternate view to support their hypotheses. Yet these same people hold differences between John and the synoptics are problematic.)

But let noted NT scholar W.F. Albright speak to the matter:

One of the strangest assumptions of critical New Testament scholars and theologians is that the mind of Jesus was so limited that any apparent contrast between John and the Synoptics must be do to difference between early Christian theologians. Every great thinker and personality is going to be interpreted differently by different friends and hearers, who will select what seems most congenial or useful out of what they have seen and heard. From Socrates to the most recent men of eminence there are innumerable examples. The Christian might a fortiori suppose the same to be true of his Master.

Westcott's analysis of the internal evidence suggested that the author must have been:
1) a Jew
2) a Palestinian
3) an eyewitness
and
4) a disciple of Jesus.
I do not believe this would exclude John, and his authorship seesm a lot less controversial than you propose.

It most be admitted that the Gospel contains no author's name actually attached. The only thing we know is that the author testifies to himself being the "beloved disciple" against whom Jesus rest at their final Passover meal.

In reading the text, one other thing we know about this beloved disciple is that he was a close companion of Peter. The book of Acts and Paul's letter to the church in Galatia both testify that John and Peter were indeed constant companions in the early ministry of the apostles.

There is much more that I could write in regard to both internal and external evidences regarding Johanine authorship, but if you've decided to doubt, I don't suppose there is anything I could show you that would bring about a change of your mind. But this I hope to have made clear, your statement that "Someone here seems,not aware yet of how controversal the Authorship of the Johannine works(and other NT writings as well) is ..!!" does not apply to me. Indeed I am aware. It is just that on considering the evidence for myself, I disagree with such a conclusion.

B][/B]

format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker

And what would it mean if they had? It would have just been a case of claiming something for itself. That doesn't prove it is so, either.
The Qur'an isn't inspired because Muhammad said so -- hundreds of other people from Joseph Smith to people publishing their latest dreams on the internet have made similar claims -- you believe it is inspired for reasons beyond that it says it is. Likewise, we consider the NT inspired for reasons beyond merely a prooftext in the middle of it saying that it is. It isn't because Paul tells Timothy that the scriptures are inspired; it isn't even because Jesus used the Old Testament passages and treated them as the divine word of God. The primary reason that we accept the scriptures as inspired is because we believe we see the work of the Holy Spirit present in making the revelation of Jesus Christ known to us and in the community which passed this message on to us.

i already stated that both the issues with paul and jesus referencing the old testament are closed cases. however if you somehow think that these issues bolster the evidence for the devinity of the NEW TESTAMENT scriptures please state why plainly and dont imply that they do when they dont.

you have basically collaborated with my original thinking by your statement that the PRIMARY REASON you consider the NT ispired is because you the christians, without any authority from jesus, and without any scriptual authority, have made that decision. and of course what right does anybody have to say that certain writings are the inspired words of god without any evidence of god making that claim.

you spoke of the quran. but the book states that it is inspired. so prove it wrong. but what sense does it make to take a collection of writings, and, without any divine authority, claim that they are inspired. you guys made that up and thats not right.

format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker

Right! I know that is why you view it as you do. That was the point I was making. (Sorry if it wasn't clearer.) The questioner seemed to be suggesting that unless the Bible claimed to be inspired from within its own text that it was therefore proof that it was not.

I was trying to show that even though the Qur'an might make internal claims to being inspired, that it wasn't for that reason that Muslims held it to be so. I question the value of his suggested standard of internal self proclaimation of inspired status as even relevant to evaluating a text. Why hold different texts to different standards? So, I'm questioning the very nature of the his proposal for looking to an internal claim of inspiration as being of limited value and irrelevant to determine whether or not any text is inspired. I much prefer that which you set forth -- not because it says it is inpsired, but because it can stand on its own accord and it challenges you.

While Muslims may doubt that to be true of the Bible, at least it is a standard that can be applied to all texts, and one which I personally do find to be true of the Bible.

In the Qur'an, Allah SWT declares in numerous ayats that the Qur'an is His clear guidance for the mankind and Allah SWT Himself will preserve the Qur'an.

That is what muslims hold as the standard: that Allah SWT unambiguously states that it is the scripture.

BTW, I don't know what your motive in saying that muslims believe the Qur'an is a book created by inspired prophet Muhammad SAW, because I am 100% certain that you are AWARE that all muslims believe that the Qur'an is the direct, unaltered, unadulterated words of Allah SWT.

This is VERY different to the christians claim that the bible is written by "inspired" writers (among them are unknown)

format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker

Well, actually...

Peter did write this: "our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him." (2 Peter 3:15)

Paul wrote: "God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles." (Galatians 2:8)


John wrote: "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ." (1 John 1:1-3)



So, Peter and Paul each testify that the ministry of the other one is from God. And John testifies that what he writes about is first-hand information. And as a part of that first-hand account he shares that Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit: "When he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth." (John 16:13) And that presence of the Spirit guiding the disciples and the rest of the Church is why we say that the product of their writings is inspired.

paul wrote with "the wisdom that god gave him". god has given all of us wisdom. paul did not write with "god's wisdom given to him" or with "inspiration from god".

god was at work in paul's and peter's ministries. but the scripture does not state that the work that god was helping them do was writing scripture.

"the spirit will guide you to all truth" can be interpreted in many ways. perhaps the fall of contemporary christianity is the "guidence". perhaps the fall of contemporary islam.

format_quote Originally Posted by kidcanman

fedos
i have learned from you that jesus made reference to old testament writings. and it can be argued that we can identify those writings. and it can be argued that many people have testified that jesus made such a statement. so the case for the old testament is closed.

and timothy 3:16 may not be in the old testament but it is an account of a story in which THE SPEAKER IS SURELY NOT REFERENCING HIS OWN STORY AS SCRIPTURE but rather he is speaking of old testament writings.

and again in the quote from peter it states that "PROPHECY CAME IN OLD TIMES". that quote is not referencing the story in which it is being quoted.

so did jesus or anybody reference the new testament as being inspired.

Well, going further with what you have said, there are Old Testament prophecies concerning the Messiah--that is, Jesus Christ--where it is stated that he will deliver the Jewish people from all hostilities and threats; and prophecies concerning how the Messiah will rule the world and bring about peace everywhere. None of these things have happened yet.

But in the New Testament we have the account of Christ's ministry, and in some places (like the book of Revelation) prophecies concerning how Christ will come to rule the world and deliver the Jewish people.

But I do understand what you are saying. The point I'd just like to make is that the Old Testament is a percursor to the New, or a foreshadowing of the New. You can't have the New Testament without first having the Old. The New Testament gets it's authority from the Old.

format_quote Originally Posted by Supreme

If Jesus referenced books that would be written up to forty yeats after His ascension, then people of the time would have been slightly worried as to His wellbeing.



Who do you mean by 'divine authority'?

jesus is a prophet of god. thus he could have prophisied the NT. futhermore some people call the NT the gospel of jesus as if he sanctioned the writings.

by devine authority i mean sanctioned by god. if you found a book that told the future and led you to do only good things you still could not claim that it is inspired by god. perhaps an angel inspired it. perhaps the devil. perhaps a smart fortune teller. perhaps anybody.

so why is it okay for a group of catholic men to select specific writings and then say, "this is from god" without god's authority. is there even the slightest evidence that these men had god's authority to make such a claim. or else is there evidence that jesus made such a claim. on what authority do you make the claim.

format_quote Originally Posted by Fedos

Well, going further with what you have said, there are Old Testament prophecies concerning the Messiah--that is, Jesus Christ--where it is stated that he will deliver the Jewish people from all hostilities and threats; and prophecies concerning how the Messiah will rule the world and bring about peace everywhere. None of these things have happened yet.

But in the New Testament we have the account of Christ's ministry, and in some places (like the book of Revelation) prophecies concerning how Christ will come to rule the world and deliver the Jewish people.

But I do understand what you are saying. The point I'd just like to make is that the Old Testament is a percursor to the New, or a foreshadowing of the New. You can't have the New Testament without first having the Old. The New Testament gets it's authority from the Old.

the NT does not get its authority from the OT because as far as we know the OT does not reference the NT anywhere. not one single mention. there are prophecies about jesus and other events in the OT but it does not reference the NT writings.

there are prophecies in the NT that are found in the OT. Just because a collection of writings, in some places, mention OT prophecies does not mean that the collection of writings are inspired or that they are somehow linked to the OT.