Written by God?

[Antigone]

Many times I hear Christians say the bible was "written by God." But not all Christians believe this, they believe one of two things instead: it was 'inspired' by God, or it was written by human hands and God had nothing to do with it. I often wonder how such a wide range of views about a religion's sacred text can be held. Its almost as if some people are compromizing so they can continue to be Christian.

Since there is such a wide range of views there must be a reason for it, maybe the Christian's stronge belief that God wrote the bible isn't in the bible; threrfor there is no bases for why they believe this??

This is a two part qeustion:
What is the basis of the belief that God wrote the bible (or inspired it and the very 'fact' he inspired it still means it is all true and NOT wronge in ay respect)? And what would be the 'proof' that God didn't write the bible? (For example, IF you believe the bible is inerrant because God wrote or inspired the bible, what would need to happen or what would you need to see in order to not believe that anymore?)

I look forward to the discussion and debate!

[Metacrock]

goat:

yes, orgien used Jospehus as a resource, However, he did not use Jospehus as a resource about the divinity of Jesus. He mentioned him in relationship to James who was executed, and does not refer to antiquities 18 at all. That is the purest speculation.

Meta:first we are not talking Jesus' divinity we are talking about his exisetense as a man in history.

Secondly, you have no idea weather he did refur to the TF or not. But the quote says he did. they didn't write that just because he mentions Josephus. He was specifically speaking of his mention of Jesus.

That is correct. And, I am specifically asking for any evidence that TF even existed before the 4th century. So far, you have not provided any information, just excuses about Euribus, and speculation.

why don't you red the docs? The quote on Origin specifally says he was awre of Jospehus talk about Jesus. It also says he knew an older version of it. other quotes say the differing verison such as Jeromes are inidcations of older readings. all of that is fine evidence that it existed bofore the foruth century. Origen lived in the second century.

the evidence specifically said the 12th century ms of the syriac is good solid evdience of a reading older than that of the fourth century (that of Eusebius). Why? because we can tell by that it comes from an older copy.


mss are copied and we can tell by the way they are copied what they come from.

You mention Origien. How about let's look at what Origien ACTUALLY said, and see if it was refering to Antiquites 18 at all? We can look at antiquies 20 later on. There is reason to think that is an interpolition too.. but we can discuss that seperately.

read the quote

We can have a different arguement about antiquies 20, but orgien
mentions JOhn the Baptist, (which is mentioned in anitiquies 18), yet doesn't mention the passage about Jesus. He does mention James the Just... (the 'one called christ' is very likely to be a copier's gloss, according to Doherty). HOwever
you have yet to provide anything other than speculation, and excuses about antiquites 18.

Surely you have something of substance, since you are so positive. All I see is excuses, speculation, and hoped for dreams.

the quote says:

"Again, the same conclusion follows from the fact that Origen knew a Josephan text about Jesus, but was not acquainted with our present reading; for, according to the great Alexandrian doctor, Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the Messias ("In Matth.", xiii, 55; "Contra Cels.", I, 47)."


that means two thing:

(1) it syas he knew the passage

(2) it says the passage verion he knew is older reading becuase it's different. so that puts it back much before the fourth century.

And , lets look at what origen said. so we can make our own decision. Read what Origien said. It said NOTHING about Antiquiets 18 at all. Once we settle this issue, we can discuss antiquties 20.

Or, don't you want to go to the original source, but rather depend on secondary or terciary sources??

you don't understand about evidence. you don t'have any I do. you can't just keep asking questions you have to make an extension of your arugment. evdience always trumps no evidence.

go find some textual mansucript reaosn why we should think there's a problem. you have no argument.sheer speculation and wishful thinking is not an argument.

[Goat]

goat:

yes, orgien used Jospehus as a resource, However, he did not use Jospehus as a resource about the divinity of Jesus. He mentioned him in relationship to James who was executed, and does not refer to antiquities 18 at all. That is the purest speculation.

Meta:first we are not talking Jesus' divinity we are talking about his exisetense as a man in history.

Secondly, you have no idea weather he did refur to the TF or not. But the quote says he did. they didn't write that just because he mentions Josephus. He was specifically speaking of his mention of Jesus.

That is correct. And, I am specifically asking for any evidence that TF even existed before the 4th century. So far, you have not provided any information, just excuses about Euribus, and speculation.

why don't you red the docs? The quote on Origin specifally says he was awre of Jospehus talk about Jesus. It also says he knew an older version of it. other quotes say the differing verison such as Jeromes are inidcations of older readings. all of that is fine evidence that it existed bofore the foruth century. Origen lived in the second century.

the evidence specifically said the 12th century ms of the syriac is good solid evdience of a reading older than that of the fourth century (that of Eusebius). Why? because we can tell by that it comes from an older copy.


mss are copied and we can tell by the way they are copied what they come from.

You mention Origien. How about let's look at what Origien ACTUALLY said, and see if it was refering to Antiquites 18 at all? We can look at antiquies 20 later on. There is reason to think that is an interpolition too.. but we can discuss that seperately.

read the quote

We can have a different arguement about antiquies 20, but orgien
mentions JOhn the Baptist, (which is mentioned in anitiquies 18), yet doesn't mention the passage about Jesus. He does mention James the Just... (the 'one called christ' is very likely to be a copier's gloss, according to Doherty). HOwever
you have yet to provide anything other than speculation, and excuses about antiquites 18.

Surely you have something of substance, since you are so positive. All I see is excuses, speculation, and hoped for dreams.

the quote says:

"Again, the same conclusion follows from the fact that Origen knew a Josephan text about Jesus, but was not acquainted with our present reading; for, according to the great Alexandrian doctor, Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the Messias ("In Matth.", xiii, 55; "Contra Cels.", I, 47)."


that means two thing:

(1) it syas he knew the passage

(2) it says the passage verion he knew is older reading becuase it's different. so that puts it back much before the fourth century.

And , lets look at what origen said. so we can make our own decision. Read what Origien said. It said NOTHING about Antiquiets 18 at all. Once we settle this issue, we can discuss antiquties 20.

Or, don't you want to go to the original source, but rather depend on secondary or terciary sources??

you don't understand about evidence. you don t'have any I do. you can't just keep asking questions you have to make an extension of your arugment. evdience always trumps no evidence.

go find some textual mansucript reaosn why we should think there's a problem. you have no argument.sheer speculation and wishful thinking is not an argument.

Ok. then you admit there is no evidence for Antiquities 18 from before the 4th century. I have ot wonder about your desperation to try to 'prove' that it did exist with a whole bunch of irrelevant comments, distractions and strawman arguments though.

It sounds like it is you who doesn't understand evidence, since you did volumes of cut/paste jobs that did not address the issue in response to my challenge.

Now , when it comes to 'sheer speculation and wishful thinking', that sounds like projection to me. I pointed out that even the most conservative theologian will admit antiquities 18 is at least heavily modified. And, since that is the case, all I wanted was some kind of evidence produced that it existed before hand.

What I got in response was pages upon pages of wishful thinking about Erebus's
reliability, and the distraction of a translation 600 years later. I also got a small analysis of Origien without any attempt to look into what Origien actually said to see if it fit the TF. If you want to look at that in context, I will be glad to do so.

[Metacrock]

Ok. then you admit there is no evidence for Antiquities 18 from before the 4th century. I have ot wonder about your desperation to try to 'prove' that it did exist with a whole bunch of irrelevant comments, distractions and strawman arguments though.

I should hav known. when you argue with ignorant people who have no background in a subject and they are trying to save face they always insit upon real ignaornt things and refuse to listen to complex arguments.

Now Iv'e studied texutal criticism in seminary and on my own for over 30 years. It's been a hobby, it's been part of my formal training, my undergrade langaue was Greek. You just need to trust me on this.You can' look it up, it's farliy easy to find. I know it's true and i know I"m right on this. Textual critics say that when you have a reading that is very different from the standard reading, and you have good argumetns to show it's older, then it's good evidence for an older reading.It doesn't matter when the ms was written it's still proof of an older reading.

the reason fo this is because people copy things trying to make them identical. They make mistakes the mistakes get copoied and we can trace a mistake to an era or even particular ms. So if a reading lacks that mistake its' a good indication that i probaby came form ealier period. Not necessarily of cousre, but it's one indication.

Now I quoted several scholars. those are the one's you dismiss wihtout a thought and without listening to what I said, who say that for example Jeromes reading of the TF "believed to be Messiah" rather than "was Messiah" is good eivdence of an ealier reading. So even though he lived in the late third and elary foruth century, the way he copies the text indicates that he took his reading form an earlier copy. so Jeromes reading had to be prior to the fourth century.

I also quote Wealthy who says tha the 12 century Syriac text, even though is copied in the 12th century follows a reading that indicates it is ealiser than the foruth century. you do not understand this and refuse to see the validity of textual criticism because it knocks your stupid opinons on their ass.

moreover, you totally ignore what I said here:

why don't you red the docs? The quote on Origin specifally says he was awre of Jospehus talk about Jesus. It also says he knew an older version of it. other quotes say the differing verison such as Jeromes are inidcations of older readings. all of that is fine evidence that it existed bofore the foruth century. Origen lived in the second century.

the quote says he knew of the JO mention of Jesus. how could he say Jo didn't believe Jesus was Messiah if he didn't know that Jo talks about Jesus? Since he lived before the foruth century he had to read a ms that was before the fourth century. that proves there was one. can you not understand this?

It sounds like it is you who doesn't understand evidence, since you did volumes of cut/paste jobs that did not address the issue in response to my challenge.

you didn't read the material You just auotmatically turned off form it because it's a lot to read. that's the mark of geinus isn't it? all the great thinkers got where they did by ignoring the eivdence/ well genius if you had bothered to read that stuff you would direclty knocks on their ass every stupid thing you said.

just give up and ralise biblical studies is about textual sicnece. Its' about textual critics and how things are copied and understanding a form of detective work that traces the way copies are made to recnostruct an original reading of a ms. and if you don't understand that you are not even in the ball park in any discussion of this topic.

Now , when it comes to 'sheer speculation and wishful thinking', that sounds like projection to me. I pointed out that even the most conservative theologian will admit antiquities 18 is at least heavily modified. And, since that is the case, all I wanted was some kind of evidence produced that it existed before hand.

I quoted several major scholars. I'm sorry you don't undersand them and its' all over your head. but they are experts and you are not. you didn't even read the matieral and I doubt you wuld understand it. you are not arging you are just blowing gas.

in the discussion about what contitutes gettnig your ass kicked:

(1) not kowing reading the evidence

(2) not understanding the arguemnts

(3) no couner evidence at all

(4) dobmaticaly refusing to beleive experst and telling yourself you know more than they do

(5) refusing to think

(6) not being specific just psoturing all the time

these are the tarits of a person who got his ass kicked in debate


(1) quoting 30 scholars

(2) burrying your opponent in a mound of evidence

(3) complex arguments that are way to sophisticated for the other guy

these the quoatiies of a ass kicking debater.

the latter is me the former is you. this exacty what has happened in this dicussion.

[Goat]

Ok. then you admit there is no evidence for Antiquities 18 from before the 4th century. I have ot wonder about your desperation to try to 'prove' that it did exist with a whole bunch of irrelevant comments, distractions and strawman arguments though.

I should hav known. when you argue with ignorant people who have no background in a subject and they are trying to save face they always insit upon real ignaornt things and refuse to listen to complex arguments.

Now Iv'e studied texutal criticism in seminary and on my own for over 30 years. It's been a hobby, it's been part of my formal training, my undergrade langaue was Greek. You just need to trust me on this.You can' look it up, it's farliy easy to find. I know it's true and i know I"m right on this. Textual critics say that when you have a reading that is very different from the standard reading, and you have good argumetns to show it's older, then it's good evidence for an older reading.It doesn't matter when the ms was written it's still proof of an older reading.

the reason fo this is because people copy things trying to make them identical. They make mistakes the mistakes get copoied and we can trace a mistake to an era or even particular ms. So if a reading lacks that mistake its' a good indication that i probaby came form ealier period. Not necessarily of cousre, but it's one indication.

Now I quoted several scholars. those are the one's you dismiss wihtout a thought and without listening to what I said, who say that for example Jeromes reading of the TF "believed to be Messiah" rather than "was Messiah" is good eivdence of an ealier reading. So even though he lived in the late third and elary foruth century, the way he copies the text indicates that he took his reading form an earlier copy. so Jeromes reading had to be prior to the fourth century.

I also quote Wealthy who says tha the 12 century Syriac text, even though is copied in the 12th century follows a reading that indicates it is ealiser than the foruth century. you do not understand this and refuse to see the validity of textual criticism because it knocks your stupid opinons on their ass.

moreover, you totally ignore what I said here:

why don't you red the docs? The quote on Origin specifally says he was awre of Jospehus talk about Jesus. It also says he knew an older version of it. other quotes say the differing verison such as Jeromes are inidcations of older readings. all of that is fine evidence that it existed bofore the foruth century. Origen lived in the second century.

the quote says he knew of the JO mention of Jesus. how could he say Jo didn't believe Jesus was Messiah if he didn't know that Jo talks about Jesus? Since he lived before the foruth century he had to read a ms that was before the fourth century. that proves there was one. can you not understand this?

It sounds like it is you who doesn't understand evidence, since you did volumes of cut/paste jobs that did not address the issue in response to my challenge.

you didn't read the material You just auotmatically turned off form it because it's a lot to read. that's the mark of geinus isn't it? all the great thinkers got where they did by ignoring the eivdence/ well genius if you had bothered to read that stuff you would direclty knocks on their ass every stupid thing you said.

just give up and ralise biblical studies is about textual sicnece. Its' about textual critics and how things are copied and understanding a form of detective work that traces the way copies are made to recnostruct an original reading of a ms. and if you don't understand that you are not even in the ball park in any discussion of this topic.

Now , when it comes to 'sheer speculation and wishful thinking', that sounds like projection to me. I pointed out that even the most conservative theologian will admit antiquities 18 is at least heavily modified. And, since that is the case, all I wanted was some kind of evidence produced that it existed before hand.

I quoted several major scholars. I'm sorry you don't undersand them and its' all over your head. but they are experts and you are not. you didn't even read the matieral and I doubt you wuld understand it. you are not arging you are just blowing gas.

in the discussion about what contitutes gettnig your ass kicked:

(1) not kowing reading the evidence

(2) not understanding the arguemnts

(3) no couner evidence at all

(4) dobmaticaly refusing to beleive experst and telling yourself you know more than they do

(5) refusing to think

(6) not being specific just psoturing all the time

these are the tarits of a person who got his ass kicked in debate


(1) quoting 30 scholars

(2) burrying your opponent in a mound of evidence

(3) complex arguments that are way to sophisticated for the other guy

these the quoatiies of a ass kicking debater.

the latter is me the former is you. this exacty what has happened in this dicussion.

You can stop insulting me, and you can stop tooting your horn. Just because someoen does not agree with your sources doesn't mean they are 'ignorant of
complex arguements'. Crap arguements are crap arguements, no matter how many people you misquote, or how many flake sources you use.

One thing you fail to realise is that 'complex arguements' are not sophsicated.. they are bullshit. As for evidence.. I ask you for evidence, and you immedately give a whole bunch of information that is not releavnet to the issure at hand.. but rather trying to obsure the question.

One item you should have learned in your 'scholar' pursuits is that the ability to communicate an idea is important. If you can't communicate it, it is worhtless.

Many of your arguements are semantically null. You are so enthralled with your big words that you fail to realise that what you say mean nothing. Even those arguements you DO use in your 'arguemetn for xxx' are unprovable. Some don't even make sense as your present it.

As for your sources, I mean, using a news paper article that can't even get the author of the book you are claiming says something wrong is not what I consider very good sources. Using a person more well known for insults, and telling Islam how they are getting their own religion wrong is not what I consider good resources. Quoting a whole bunch of sources, but having none of those quotes deal with the issue at hand is not scholarship, but rather making smoke and mirror arguements.

But, since you are more interested in insulting someone than honest discourse, you can have the final say if you wish.

[Metacrock]

Ok. then you admit there is no evidence for Antiquities 18 from before the 4th century. I have ot wonder about your desperation to try to 'prove' that it did exist with a whole bunch of irrelevant comments, distractions and strawman arguments though.

I should hav known. when you argue with ignorant people who have no background in a subject and they are trying to save face they always insit upon real ignaornt things and refuse to listen to complex arguments.

Now Iv'e studied texutal criticism in seminary and on my own for over 30 years. It's been a hobby, it's been part of my formal training, my undergrade langaue was Greek. You just need to trust me on this.You can' look it up, it's farliy easy to find. I know it's true and i know I"m right on this. Textual critics say that when you have a reading that is very different from the standard reading, and you have good argumetns to show it's older, then it's good evidence for an older reading.It doesn't matter when the ms was written it's still proof of an older reading.

the reason fo this is because people copy things trying to make them identical. They make mistakes the mistakes get copoied and we can trace a mistake to an era or even particular ms. So if a reading lacks that mistake its' a good indication that i probaby came form ealier period. Not necessarily of cousre, but it's one indication.

Now I quoted several scholars. those are the one's you dismiss wihtout a thought and without listening to what I said, who say that for example Jeromes reading of the TF "believed to be Messiah" rather than "was Messiah" is good eivdence of an ealier reading. So even though he lived in the late third and elary foruth century, the way he copies the text indicates that he took his reading form an earlier copy. so Jeromes reading had to be prior to the fourth century.

I also quote Wealthy who says tha the 12 century Syriac text, even though is copied in the 12th century follows a reading that indicates it is ealiser than the foruth century. you do not understand this and refuse to see the validity of textual criticism because it knocks your stupid opinons on their ass.

moreover, you totally ignore what I said here:

why don't you red the docs? The quote on Origin specifally says he was awre of Jospehus talk about Jesus. It also says he knew an older version of it. other quotes say the differing verison such as Jeromes are inidcations of older readings. all of that is fine evidence that it existed bofore the foruth century. Origen lived in the second century.

the quote says he knew of the JO mention of Jesus. how could he say Jo didn't believe Jesus was Messiah if he didn't know that Jo talks about Jesus? Since he lived before the foruth century he had to read a ms that was before the fourth century. that proves there was one. can you not understand this?

It sounds like it is you who doesn't understand evidence, since you did volumes of cut/paste jobs that did not address the issue in response to my challenge.

you didn't read the material You just auotmatically turned off form it because it's a lot to read. that's the mark of geinus isn't it? all the great thinkers got where they did by ignoring the eivdence/ well genius if you had bothered to read that stuff you would direclty knocks on their ass every stupid thing you said.

just give up and ralise biblical studies is about textual sicnece. Its' about textual critics and how things are copied and understanding a form of detective work that traces the way copies are made to recnostruct an original reading of a ms. and if you don't understand that you are not even in the ball park in any discussion of this topic.

Now , when it comes to 'sheer speculation and wishful thinking', that sounds like projection to me. I pointed out that even the most conservative theologian will admit antiquities 18 is at least heavily modified. And, since that is the case, all I wanted was some kind of evidence produced that it existed before hand.

I quoted several major scholars. I'm sorry you don't undersand them and its' all over your head. but they are experts and you are not. you didn't even read the matieral and I doubt you wuld understand it. you are not arging you are just blowing gas.

in the discussion about what contitutes gettnig your ass kicked:

(1) not kowing reading the evidence

(2) not understanding the arguemnts

(3) no couner evidence at all

(4) dobmaticaly refusing to beleive experst and telling yourself you know more than they do

(5) refusing to think

(6) not being specific just psoturing all the time

these are the tarits of a person who got his ass kicked in debate


(1) quoting 30 scholars

(2) burrying your opponent in a mound of evidence

(3) complex arguments that are way to sophisticated for the other guy

these the quoatiies of a ass kicking debater.

the latter is me the former is you. this exacty what has happened in this dicussion.

You can stop insulting me, and you can stop tooting your horn. Just because someoen does not agree with your sources doesn't mean they are 'ignorant of
complex arguements'. Crap arguements are crap arguements, no matter how many people you misquote, or how many flake sources you use.

you insulted me! You said I was ignoant. do you not ever examine your own words?



You did not merely disagree. several times I burried you in evidence you ddint' read it you said it didn't apply and just acted like it wasn't there. For someone raised on debate I can't help but see that as a real sin.

One thing you fail to realise is that 'complex arguements' are not sophsicated.. they are bullshit.

That's ludicrous! that's totally absurd. there something to be said for a simple eligant idea. most of my God argumetns are simple and eligant. but a simple eligant idea can have an elaborate defense.you just can't follow it.

As for evidence.. I ask you for evidence, and you immedately give a whole bunch of information that is not releavnet to the issure at hand.. but rather trying to obsure the question.

stop saying it's not relivant when it consists of experts saying "this proves an early reading." tha's exactly whatyou ask for it has to be relivant.

you have not produced a single ms that lacks the TF. not one, because are none. that's because it's a stupid argument.

One item you should have learned in your 'scholar' pursuits is that the ability to communicate an idea is important. If you can't communicate it, it is worhtless.

all you had to do was read the quotes.

Many of your arguements are semantically null. You are so enthralled with your big words that you fail to realise that what you say mean nothing. Even those arguements you DO use in your 'arguemetn for xxx' are unprovable. Some don't even make sense as your present it.

obviousy they don't say nothing genius. they say things you don't understand. stop covering and just admit you don't understand them.

As for your sources, I mean, using a news paper article that can't even get the author of the book you are claiming says something wrong is not what I consider very good sources.

well Albert I did that one tmie. I time. you have used no evidence at all. my little newspaper article may not be much but it's better any evidence you have used.

Using a person more well known for insults, and telling Islam how they are getting their own religion wrong is not what I consider good resources.

where did i do that?

Quoting a whole bunch of sources, but having none of those quotes deal with the issue at hand is not scholarship, but rather making smoke and mirror arguements.

what is wrong with your head!??? obviously they deal with the issue at hand now the name of Jesus christ can you say that? nothing is more relivant to the argument about pre foruth cenntury ms of the TF than the quotes I quoted which aruge exactly that.

you didnt' read them! you didnt read any fo them. you didn'tunderstand how they applys o you just didn't read them. tha's the markof a truely out of the loop lost debater who doesn't know what he's donig.


ok let's settle this. what do those qutoes say>? tell me what they say and why they don't apply.???????

[otseng]

Moderator intervention.

Metacrock, unfortunately, you have violated the rules too many times lately. You are now placed under probation.

If you have any questions regarding the matter, please send me a PM.

[Goat]

Using a person more well known for insults, and telling Islam how they are getting their own religion wrong is not what I consider good resources.

where did i do that?

Why don't you google your source Sam Shamoun.

Quoting a whole bunch of sources, but having none of those quotes deal with the issue at hand is not scholarship, but rather making smoke and mirror arguements.

what is wrong with your head!??? obviously they deal with the issue at hand now the name of Jesus christ can you say that? nothing is more relivant to the argument about pre foruth cenntury ms of the TF than the quotes I quoted which aruge exactly that.

you didnt' read them! you didnt read any fo them. you didn'tunderstand how they applys o you just didn't read them. tha's the markof a truely out of the loop lost debater who doesn't know what he's donig.


ok let's settle this. what do those qutoes say>? tell me what they say and why they don't apply.???????

Let's see, you quotes St Jerome. When was living. Late 4th century. That was after the Euribus quote.

Let's assume Euribus was honest. Remember what my challenge was? How did any of your sources answer my challenge?

[Greatest I Am]

The bible was writen by men who understood poorly the messages from the divine to the mystics, prophets, gnostics and shamen of that day.
Divine intervention is usually a brief touch that , althought powerfull in it's impact can only contain a small number of words. The interpretation of these words are what we read in thre bible.
Being a gnostic myself my divine message was simply, think demographycally.
If this message where given to the writers of today, can you immagine the varied interpretations that you would get.
No. the bible is to be picked at carefully for consistant dialogue that leads to a God that makes sense in all things.