Dec 8, 2011 -- 3:31PM, withwonderingawe wrote:

Namchuck wrote on the thread The Gospel of John

“As modern scholarship has soundly established, the Gospel of John is, as a previous correspondent pointed out, neither 'history' nor 'biography'.

The author of the Gospel of John even admits he is writing religious propaganda (John 20:31), which is a clue that it should be taken with a grain of salt.

One would be hard pushed to make an historical case for Jesus. Even those who suggest that Jesus is a completely mythological figure have as much 'hard' evidence to advance for their view.

That Jesus was the "Son of God" is merely a belief no different in kind from a belief in Osiris, Krishna, or Quetzlecoatl.”

My question is, is the Bible enough evidence by itself?

I mean it is made up of a number of different books written by different people explaining what they saw or experienced.

Why should we assume they are fables??

Nobody is 'assuming' that the Bible contains fables. There is sufficient evidence to 'know' that it contains fables, along with many legends and countless myths. There is also, as Mark Twain noted, some blood-drenched history in it, as well as some noble poetry, some good morals, a wealth of obscenity, "and upwards of a thousand lies".

I have grown to love the Bible over my life time, but anyone who cares about the Bible doesn't do that wonderful library of books any good by pretending that it is anything other than what it is: a collection of books inspired by human minds alone. 

Dec 13, 2011 -- 12:06AM, iamachildofhis wrote:

Dec 8, 2011 -- 3:31PM, withwonderingawe wrote:

Namchuck:  wrote on the thread The Gospel of John

“As modern scholarship has soundly established, the Gospel of John is, as a previous correspondent pointed out, neither 'history' nor 'biography'.

The author of the Gospel of John even admits he is writing religious propaganda (John 20:31), which is a clue that it should be taken with a grain of salt.

One would be hard pushed to make an historical case for Jesus. Even those who suggest that Jesus is a completely mythological figure have as much 'hard' evidence to advance for their view.

That Jesus was the "Son of God" is merely a belief no different in kind from a belief in Osiris, Krishna, or Quetzlecoatl.”

withwonderingawe: My question is, is the Bible enough evidence by itself?

I mean it is made up of a number of different books written by different people explaining what they saw or experienced.

Why should we assume they are fables??

iama: The answer is yes.

The Apostle John by God-Holy Spirit inspiration recorded at the beginning of The Gospel of John:

"He came unto His own, but His own received Him not."

In John 12 the explanation is given as to why Israel rejected their Messiah.  Isaiah 6 and 53 are referenced to John 12 giving the reason for their rejection, which was planned by their Creator-God.  The Bible as a whole tells one complete accounting from the "In the beginning God..." to the completion of the Plan of God and Revelation of Christ Jesus.  There are no contradictions, etc., if you understand the whole account to be one.

Notice, in the following, how two different recordings relate to each other:

How Israel Was Blinded

A third observation is that John gives us a glimpse into how God does this by the way he quotes the prophet Isaiah. John could have left Isaiah out and simply said: The unbelief of Israel was planned by God and their hardness and blindness is owing to his sovereign choice. But what he did was quote two different places in Isaiah. Why does he do this?

In John 12:38 he quotes Isaiah 53:1. And in John 12:40 he quotes Isaiah 6:10. Here’s why that matters. Isaiah 53 is a description, you may remember, of the suffering servant, whom we know now is Jesus. And the two verses that follow the one John quotes go like this: “He had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men” (Isaiah 53:2–3).

So the point is that Isaiah prophesied that this suffering servant would be rejected. Israel would not believe on him. Which is why John says in 12:38, “Who has believed?” Why did they not believe? Because he had no form or majesty that we should look at him. As a man he was simply not the stuff Messiah’s are made of. Not the kind of Messiah they wanted.

Then in John 12:40 John quotes Isaiah 6:10 which describes what was going to happen when Isaiah preached the vision that he saw of God’s glory in Isaiah 6:1–3, “I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up. . .  Above him stood the seraphim. . . .  And one called to another and said: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!’”

And God told Isaiah that when he preached this great and glorious God the people would not believe. They would in fact be blinded and hardened. Why? Because they did not want to hear of such majesty and glory and power and holiness.

By Lowliness and Majesty

So how was God blinding and hardening in these two passages? In the one he was sending a lowly servant — a man — with no majesty and no beauty, no form, no desirableness, knowing that he would be despised and rejected. In the other passage (Isaiah 6) God was revealing his glory in great splendor and majesty and holiness, knowing that they did not want this and would be hardened and driven away by it.

In other words, it looks like the way God planned to blind and harden many in Israel was by sending them a Messiah whom he knew they were wired to reject. They did not want his lowliness and they did not want his pretensions to glorious deity. But that’s what they would get, and God knew the effect that it would have, and he sent him anyway, and thus blinded them with the human weakness and divine glory of Jesus.

Not What They Wanted

And to give you a confirmation of this, look at verses 42-43:

Nevertheless, many even of the authorities believed in him, but for fear of the Pharisees they did not confess it, so that they would not be put out of the synagogue; for they loved the glory that comes from man more than the glory that comes from God.

Now I don’t know if this faith of the authorities was authentic. We’ve seen inauthentic faith in this gospel (2:23; 7:1­–5). What I do know is that this faith was at best flawed. And the flaw is described in a way that confirms what we saw in Isaiah 53 and Isaiah 6. The flaw in their faith, or as John 5:44 puts it, the barrier to faith, is verse 43: “They loved the glory that comes from man more than the glory that comes from God.” Jesus says in John 5:44, “How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God?”

Here’s the root of Israel’s their unbelief. They loved the glory of man. They did not love the glory of God. Now put that together with verse 41: “Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory and spoke of him.” John is saying that when Isaiah wrote of the lowly, weak, despised suffering servant, and when he wrote of the majesty and holiness of the glory of God, he was describing the glory of Jesus.

But Israel loved the glory of man — and this man in Isaiah 53 was not glorious by their standards. And Israel did not love the glory of God — and this God in Isaiah was infinitely glorious. So when Jesus comes as a suffering Messiah, that’s not what they want. And when he makes claims to be one with the very God of Isaiah 6 that’s not what they want. And so they don’t believe on him. They reject him. God knew that. And God planned that. God gave them what they absolutely needed and did not want, and in that way “blinded their eyes and hardened their heart.”

Three Conclusions for Our Gladness

Which gives us these three conclusions that turns the sad news into glad news.

1. God is sovereign over all belief and unbelief. He knows exactly how to plan both of them in ways that exalt his sovereignty and preserve man’s accountability. And therefore he is never thwarted in his plans by anyone’s unbelief. Nor is he ever prevented from saving his own (John 10:16; 6:37).

2. The root of unbelief points to the glory of Jesus Christ. He is the radiance of God’s glory, but he is meek and lowly. The root of unbelief is to love the glory of man (the centrality of man, the praise of man) and not the glory of God (the centrality and supremacy of God). And that is exactly backwards. When we love the glory of God above the glory of man, we will not reject Jesus, but believe on him.

3. The text of this message and the entire story of the public ministry of Jesus points us to the cross where he will die. He was the glory of Isaiah 6. He was the unattractive suffering servant of Isaiah 53. And therefore (because of both) he was rejected by men and destined for the cross — and for the salvation of the world. This is what God planned in the unbelief of Israel.

He was despised and rejected by men;
a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief;
and as one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.
But he was wounded for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his stripes we are healed. (Isaiah 53:3–5)

.

Quite a sermon, iama, but largely based on legend and myth.

Unfortunately, the Bible just isn't a sufficient witness to anything more than unmitigated credulity.

Dec 13, 2011 -- 5:07PM, withwonderingawe wrote:

Nam; …. but anyone who cares about the Bible doesn't do that wonderful library of books any good by pretending that it is anything other than what it is, volumes inspired by human minds alone

Let’s look at that word “anyone”, it’s like using the word ‘always’ or ‘never’ in an argument; you never come home on time or you always lose your keys. Both statements are untrue and belittling for no one is always losing their keys.

Certainly there are people who love the Bible ever bit as much as you and believe every word comes from the lips of God, they have over the last two thousand years protected it, published it and kept it alive.

No, I believe you are mistaken. I was referring to a specific group of people, namely, those who "care" about the Bible.

Those who proclaim "love" for it while deliberately ignoring the fact that it is permeated with inconsistencies, contradictions, and a whole host of other infirmities seems to me to be more concerned about their emotional needs rather than for truth of things. St. Dominic 'loved' the Bible, but that didn't stop him from burning the Albigenses. Calvin 'loved' it to, but that failed to stop him torturing Servetus.

And your claim that "they" (supposed Bible lovers, one presumes) have "protected it over the last two thousand years" seems to ignore the salient fact that there are any number of versions of the Bible, many of which are quite distinct one from another.

Nam; Quite a sermon, iama, but largely based on legend and myth.

What you haven’t done is explained why I should believe it is all a lie. Your unbelief is not evidence.

I never said that it was "all a lie". Perhaps your own emotional connection to the 'Bible' has clouded your judgement? I certainly have not been using the term 'mythical' in relation to the Bible in any sort of derogatory way. As the great mythographer, Joseph Campbell, once said, "Myth is penultimate truth". This is how I see the mythical nature of the Bible. To see it any other way is to bring it into disrepute.

Perhaps I could illustrate exactly what I mean.

Take this story told in the Book of Genesis about the obviously mythical Adam. It says that, after having bitten into the forbidden fruit, Adam fled, so that the Lord had to ask him: 'Ayekha, where are you?'

I'm sure you wouldn't attempt to convince me that the Creator of the world did not know where Adam was hiding?

An old midrash on the Bible would answer that question by suggesting that the Lord knew, but that it was Adam who didn't know.

This is where the Bible speaks mythically to mankind, of all times, therefore also to ours.

What is the real meaning of the question God asked of Adam? 'Ayekha' signifies: Where do you stand in this world? What is your place in history? What have you done with your life, Adam?

These are the fundamental questions that every human being must confront sooner or later. It is to each of us that God speaks when he says 'Ayekha'.

Reading through your profile you kind of remind me of the doubting Thomas and when Jesus said to him

“Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.”

Yes, but that can also be seen as a craven invitation to embrace credulity, something that Thomas was leary of, and quite rightly so.

A Sufi story tells us, "A man who has studied much in the schools of wisdom finally died and found himself at the Gates of Eternity. An angel of light approached him and said, 'Go no further, O mortal, until you have proven to me your worthiness to enter Paradise!' But the man answered, 'Just a minute now - First of all, can you prove to me this is the real heaven and not just the wishful fantasy of my disordered mind undergoing death?' Before the angel could reply, a voice from inside the gates shouted, 'Let him in, he's one of us!'

If man is created in the image of God, as the Bible says, then surely man's reason - which can only operate on sensory evidence and rational proof - is that part of man which is most like God, and which makes him least like any other animal? Thomas seems to have been the only follower of Jesus who recognized, or stumbled over, this great truth, which is likely why he is constently subjected to scorn by those who would rather embrace the herd mentality evoked by unquestioning faith.

Or the searching Nicodemus. The Lord said to him,

“The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be? Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.”

One should, and for good reason, put aside this silly wind nonsense. We can detect the wind; you can feel it on your face. We can even measure it in several different ways, including velocity and direction, static temperature versus wind-chill factor. We can actually see it, visually, by merely introducing smoke or some other solid substance that's been dissolved into air. Nobody claims to be able to detect the Christian deity. These kinds of stories and sayings lose all of their power when one attempts to literalise them as you are doing here. You render them silly while at the same time eviscerating them of their real power to speak to men of all ages.

Why is it impossible for us to believe someone’s else’s witness?

For the simple reason that very little should be made of such personal protestations. People are constantly subject to the most extreme personal convictions, which they can in no way rationalise. Strength of conviction never guarantees truth. When one person experiences the deepest personal conviction of one notion, say, that Allah is the way, another with conviction just as deep entirely incomoatible notion, say, that Jesus is the way. A more reasonable light in which to regard such occurrences is to suppose that there are some people who are disposed to experience extreme conviction and that the substance of the conviction, Jesus, Allah, or other, is entirely incidental.

Saying that I think the Bible is not enough alone but that there is another element needed.

“But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.” John 15:26

Yes, and the Muslims interpret this as referring to Mohammed, and who is to say that they are wrong? You?

Even though these men testified and wrote 2000 years ago the Holy Spirit they possessed still lingers upon the pages of the Bible.

Paul wrote;
“For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake.”

There is a communication of the Spirit which takes place as one opens his heart to hear the Spirit. Millions of people simply reading the written words have had that same experience and have been brought to Christ. For my mother it was the Gospel of John, by reading it and listening to the Holy Spirit she was brought to Christ.

Oh, come on. The same stories can be had from every religion with a text on the planet, even religions different and even opposed to yours. Do you really think the rehearsing of such carries any real conviction? Surely your grasp of reality extends beyond that narrow-up perspective? Or perhaps not?

In Luke 24 on the road to Emmaus a small group of men are visited by the Lord and he opens the scriptures to them and afterwards they say “.. one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?”

Again, a common refrain among Muslims with the Koran, Buddhists with the Tripitika, Mormons with the Book of Mormon, Zoroastrians with the Zend Avesta, Jews with the Torah and Talmud, and even 'devout' Communists with the writings of Mao and Marx, and so on.  

Because you haven’t had the experience it doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened to others.

You presume too much. I have had such experiences, but I also know that they are not restricted to any one religion and, in many cases, not to any religion at all. It is the simple response of human emotion to what one ardently believes, and belief has a way, so to speak, of producing its own evidence, begetting its own 'experience'.

The Bible on its own provides any amount of evidence that it is the work of men and that much of it is about as inspired as 'Mein Kampf'.

The thing most seriously in question in the Bible is the moral character of its God, a despotic deity who makes bad mistakes and gets into genocidal rages.

For those who need supernatural attachment figures in their lives, they could do far better than the brutal God of the Bible.

Mar 8, 2012 -- 8:33AM, Rgurley4 wrote:

The Bible is the ONLY book that claims to be spirit-inspired, that God superintended the authors.

2 Peter 1:21
For prophecy never had its origin in the human will,

but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Thus inspired, it portrays the character and attributed of a perfectly RIGHT TRI-UNE GOD.

The Koran makes the same claim.