Ex-Church of Christ Support Board

ok, at least the NT. I know everyone thinks they know all about me and project all sorts of the worst things ever on to me. Hey...happy holidays everyone. But here is my thinking on the Bible.

1. There is no definition or understanding on the "inspiration" of the writers of the NT. The God breathed notion is way off base.
2. The Gospels were written decades after the events and even Luke says he had to research the material...it had to be oral to some extent.
3. The direct epistles from Paul, Jude, Peter, and John then seem to hold more weight as to "applicable" "instruction".
4. There is no indication that God mandated or expected a written NT Bible, but instead foolishness of preaching and people teaching people seemed to be the plan

So the idea that God through the Spirit preserved the Bible so that we can read and understand does not in itself seem to be stressed or indicated. This not to say that the Bible is not true, but how does one infer or know that God had a compiled Bible handed down for thousands of years as even the plan? And this might explain why it was the Catholics that put such a thing together. Compiling such a collection does not ever seem to be on the minds of the writers. The writers were expecting a near term return of Jesus not thousands of years and the need for a paper trail documentation.

Again this is not saying that it is not "true" in some sense of Truth. But was it the intention or plan of God on how to instruct Christians on how to do church some two thousand years down the road? It does not seem so to me. But if one decides it is a faithful account and wants to try and derive some sort of WWJD or WWPD then you need all these other tools approaches. But again, I am not even sure it was intended. The letters of the Apostles do seem to focus on warning against apostasy. So if one is wanting to take that warning to heed then so be it...but the detail logic arguments based on the Greek word or tense used in some passage seems to be taking it to whole nother level of what is being implied or inferred about the writings and translations.

So yes, I think Matthew and Luke are both probably correct about the birth of Jesus, but I think they were not getting the details from Mary or God and they were recording what they knew and writing it in a form for their intended audience and purpose. To me there is enough time slop and vagueness to accommodate both accounts. But no I do not know for sure or why there is variations between the 4 Gospel writers. I think the variation argues more to adjusting one's notion of "inspiration" than it does to saying one is false and another is true.

What I mean is that I tend to point out what I find to be weak arguments, unsupported assertions, and general slams based on personal bias...on this site the topic is religion and CofC in particular. Therefore people tend to project on to me that I am a conservative Bible thumping CofCer because I call BS on their BS...therefore I must be supporting an opposite opinion. Actually my opinion is that it does no good (and possibly harm to the position) to use stupid arguments and assertions to prove any point or to rail against anything. But rather then reflect on what and why something is being said it is just easier to go negative and personal on me and I must have some motive.

Case in point...it does no good to assert that the Bible is full of contradictions and writers who didn't agree...if the factual case cannot be made. And throwing in that non-Christians such as Jesus rejecting Jews do not agree with the Apostles is just useless to the person who already accepts Jesus...of course the Jews and those identifying as Jewish will hold a position that makes their own case. But it is rather pointless to offer their slams since they are based on personal bias and choice.

This is posted in Support and Agreement forum, which means the first post sets the topic. It's possible to be supportive of others without agreeing with them. But if you can't be supportive, then its best to say nothing.

I enjoyed reading your perspective, KLP.

thanks...I find when I go back and read an old posting that I could have written it better or made it more clear. But yes, many have such a binary way of thinking, that if you point out a flaw/weakness in some assertion that you must then hold the opposite position (because there are always only 2 positions right? ).

KLP wrote:thanks...I find when I go back and read an old posting that I could have written it better or made it more clear. But yes, many have such a binary way of thinking, that if you point out a flaw/weakness in some assertion that you must then hold the opposite position (because there are always only 2 positions right? ).

Yes, false dichotomy is a trap we all fall into occasionally.

KLP wrote: 1. There is no definition or understanding on the "inspiration" of the writers of the NT. The God breathed notion is way off base.

Agreed. Inspired means in spirit or with the spirit. The people were not told what to write otherwise there would be more agreement between the gospels. The Gospels were written individually. Mark seems to be the basis for Matthew and Luke. There are differences. This should surprise no one as each gospel is a statement of faith for different individuals according to stories they were familiar with. In some cases Mark is copied. It is four testimonies. There is no proof that the writers were actual witnesses. Most of the witnesses were women as the Apostles were in hiding. John is very different. The works were given names to indentify them. You will come across the John the son of Zebidee was the Author of John. In general he is called John of Patmos.

KLP wrote: 2. The Gospels were written decades after the events and even Luke says he had to research the material...it had to be oral to some extent.

There is some discussion by scholars on this one. At one time second century was argued. Paprii have been found that argue for an earlier date.

KLP wrote: 3. The direct epistles from Paul, Jude, Peter, and John then seem to hold more weight as to "applicable" "instruction".

We don't know that apostles could even write or read. Acts 4:13 KJV

13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.

The Greek for unlearned is "unlettered" or in Greek agrammitos. Illiterate could be said. But we don't know if it is about Hebrew or Greek. Litteracy is rare when people have to fill their bellies.

http://bibliaparalela.com/greek/62.htm

KLP wrote: 4. There is no indication that God mandated or expected a written NT Bible, but instead foolishness of preaching and people teaching people seemed to be the plan

There was no Bible for over 300 years after Jesus. There was no general agreement amongst the churches as what was scripture and what was not. The first time the 27 books of the protestant bible was listed was in the 367 CE. This was in an Easter letter from Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria. It is called the 39th Festal Letter. It is searchable and translated. If you search the early church you find Catholics and Orthodox. There are many shows on this subject on youtube. One is called Banned From the Bible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kKU8XdrCJ8