The best evidence

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]A) Are most of the books in what Christians call the "Old Testament" books written by Jews long before the RCC existed?

Depends how long you mean by "long before". But yes, they were written before the RCC existed.

B) Were those books considered "divinely inspired" by Jews?

Quite possibly not in the same way as Christians.

[b because I don't have a propensity for vagueness does not mean I'm nitpicking.[/b]

I'd say that for you to say that you don't have a "propensity for vagueness" and then write the above, totally non-responsive post is ironic to the highest degree. In short, your assertion is a flat out untruth which you cannot defend. And since it was YOUR assertion that the RCC were the first ones to "discern" that the "Old Testament" books were divinely inspired, it is YOUR burden to present SOME evidence for this remarkable fantasy of yours.

EDIT: The Jews consider the Torah in particular (which includes Numbers) as God's instuctions to his Chosen people. Is that "divinely inspired" enough for ya?

Originally posted by no1marauder
I'd say that for you to say that you don't have a "propensity for vagueness" and then write the above, totally non-responsive post is ironic to the highest degree. In short, your assertion is a flat out untruth which you cannot defend. And since it was YOUR assertion that the RCC were the first ones to "discern" that the "Old Testament" books were divin ...[text shortened]... spired, it is YOUR burden to present SOME evidence for this remarkable fantasy of yours.

As I said before, the Christian concept of 'divine inspiration' is quite possibly very different from the Jewish concept (vistesd should be able to elaborate here). So, when talking about divine inspiration from a Christian context, I'm perfectly correct in saying that it was the Church that discerned the divine inspiration of the Scriptures. Deuterocanonicals controversy notwithstanding, if the Church had decided that Genesis was not divinely inspired, virtually no Christian today would've treated Genesis as divinely inspired.

On the other hand, the idea of divine inspiration per se was not invented by the Church - the Jews had it as well. So, I should have been more precise. I apologise.

What's interesting to note is that, on the question of interpretation, the Jews do not have the idea of authoritative interpretations (vistesd would say here that interpretations cannot be authoritative). If there is no "right" way of reading this incident in Judaism, then my view is no more "wrong" than yours.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
As I said before, the Christian concept of 'divine inspiration' is quite possibly very different from the Jewish concept (vistesd should be able to elaborate here). So, when talking about divine inspiration from a Christian context, I'm perfectly correct in saying that it was the Church that discerned the divine inspiration of the Scriptures. Deuteroc ...[text shortened]... t" way of reading this incident in Judaism, then my view is no more "wrong" than yours.

My concept of the perfect martini might be quite different from your concept.

Therefore, I was the first to discern the concept of a perfect martini even though your descendents wrote about the perfect martini a 1000 years ago.

I am perfectly correct in saying this because I said so.

Originally posted by no1marauder
My concept of the perfect martini might be quite different from your concept.

Therefore, I was the first to discern the concept of a perfect martini even though your descendents wrote about the perfect martini a 1000 years ago.

I am perfectly correct in saying this because I said so.

If we're talking about the perfect martini in the marauderian context then, yes, you would be right.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
If we're talking about the perfect martini in the marauderian context then, yes, you would be right.

This is yet another example of what I call "moving the goal posts", a technique you invariably do when your initial assertion is shown to be untrue and/or absurd. The original point had nothing whatsoever to do with Christian perspective at all; your statement was:

The Church's moral teaching is truth. To put it bluntly, it was the Church that discerned that the Scriptures were divinely inspired - it is the prerogative of the Church to discern how they must be read.

Where is the "Christian context" in that?

As an aside, the assertion doesn't make any logical sense either. Suppose I'm the first to discern that Romeo and Juliet was inspired by by an ancient Greek story. Is it now my prerogative to tell everybody in the world how every part of Romeo and Juliet MUST be read??

Originally posted by no1marauder
This is yet another example of what I call "moving the goal posts", a technique you invariably do when your initial assertion is shown to be untrue and/or absurd. The original point had nothing whatsoever to do with Christian perspective at all; your statement was:

The Church's moral teaching is truth. To put it bluntly, it was the Church that d ...[text shortened]... rogative to tell everybody in the world how every part of Romeo and Juliet MUST be read??

Where is the "Christian context" in that?

You're being myopic. Follow the discussion back to where it started:

Originally posted by TheSkipper
... as it is now whenever I suggest that the Bible means something other than what it actually says my Christian friends tell me I can;t do that. I think it would be nice to be able to show them my certificate or pocket card, or whatever, that authorizes me to tell them what the Bible "really" means.

This sub-thread has always been about teaching authority in the Christian context.

As an aside, the assertion doesn't make any logical sense either. Suppose I'm the first to discern that Romeo and Juliet was inspired by by an ancient Greek story. Is it now my prerogative to tell everybody in the world how every part of Romeo and Juliet MUST be read??

The analogy is a false one because the sense you use the term 'inspired' above is not univocal (or even analogous) to its use in 'divinely inspired'.

The whole concept of Devine Inspiration has fundamental flaws:
1. Much of the Bible is written with the culture of the time being strongly involved and therefore would have different meaning for different cultures.
2. Imperfect copying and Translation has distorted it enormously from the origional or if it hasnt we have no evidence that it hasnt. If the translation process is also inspired then why do we have so many different translations often with very different meanings. The whole "discernment" of a virgin birth combined with the continuing virginity of mary has its origin in a possible translation error.
3. The list of books included in the bible was decided well after they had been written, changed etc and again there is no evidence that the choosing of the books was "inspired"

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]Where is the "Christian context" in that?

You're being myopic. Follow the discussion back to where it started:

Originally posted by TheSkipper
[i/]... as it is now whenever I suggest that the Bible means something other than what it actually says my Christian friends tell me I can;t do that. I think it would be nice to be a nspired' above is not univocal (or even analogous) to its use in 'divinely inspired'.[/b]

A flat out falsehood; the conversation started out with my mention of the Midianite massacre. Who's being myopic now??

It's been pointed out many times to people who have problems understanding logic like you, that an analogy cannot be "false". If you want to say an analogy is not useful you have to make an argument, not merely an assertion.

Originally posted by no1marauder
A flat out falsehood; the conversation started out with my mention of the Midianite massacre. Who's being myopic now??

It's been pointed out many times to people who have problems understanding logic like you, that an analogy cannot be "false". If you want to say an analogy is not useful you have to make an argument, not merely an assertion.

A flat out falsehood; the conversation started out with my mention of the Midianite massacre. Who's being myopic now??

It's still you. You started with "Your God is soooo " - which makes it rather obvious it's the Christian context.

It's been pointed out many times to people who have problems understanding logic like you, that an analogy cannot be "false".

Technically it should be called a faulty or weak analogy; but the term 'false analogy' is common enough that there is little risk of ambiguity (and is, in fact, used to denote the fallacy in many texts on logic).

In this case, your analogy is faulty for a number of reasons (one of which I pointed out earlier). Shakespeare's inspiration based on a Greek myth does not imply that the Greek myth is an active agent attempting to communicate with the reader of Shakespeare. Divine inspiration, on the other hand, implies that God is trying to communicate with the reader using the writer. So the two situations are not really comparable.

Second, in the books of the Bible, the author is trying to convey a message to his audience that is directly related to his source of [divine inspiration]. Your analogy makes no mention as to Shakespeare's intent in writing the play. If, for instance, Shakespeare intended the play to be a political commentary on the English Reformation, then the way in which the author wants his audience to read his play and understand his message is, quite obviously, the preferred manner in which to read it if one is trying to understand the author's message.

Third, your 'discernment' of Shakespeare's source of inspiration is not set in the context of an authoritative judgment on the purpose of the work. This is different from the case of the Church were, in deciding that these works were divinely inspired and useful for Christians, it has already made a preliminary judgment on how it might be useful for Christians - which implies, among other things, how it is to be read by Christians.

To summarise, your analogy is a faulty one because key elements relevant to your argument differ between the cases.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b/]A flat out falsehood; the conversation started out with my mention of the Midianite massacre. Who's being myopic now??

It's still you. You started with "Your God is soooo " - which makes it rather obvious it's the Christian context.

It's been pointed out many times to people who have problems understanding logic like you, that a lty one because key elements relevant to your argument differ between the cases.

Your differences are all circular reasoning merely restating the same thing in different ways. In essense, the Church claims that the Bible is divinely inspired AND the Church claims it is the only agent that can properly discern how to read the Bible properly therefore, the Bible is divinely inspired and the Church is the only ones who can read it authoritatively. I could make the exact same claim in my analogy; I just need to dress it up with some superstitious mumbojumbo about Shakespere being an instrument of God.

Your first sentence again highlights your terrible reading comprehension problem; this discussion is about your bizarre claim that the Church was the first to discern that the Jewish books of the "Old Testament" was divinely inspired. That claim came from my statement about the Midianite massacre, but I said nothing about a Christian context and neither did you. That is a later invention of yours to try to save your ridiculous assertion that the Jews didn't discern that the Torah was divinely inspired. Now, of course, you only meant that the Church were the first CHRISTIANS to find the "Old Testament" divinely inspired! That claim is soooooooooooooo flat out trivial that it's not worth making, let alone discussing. It is also, of course, circular reasoning as well.

Originally posted by twhitehead

Allow me to clear up your confusion.

Your absolutely correct in your assertion for the timeframe and differing cultures in which the Bible was written. Although this actually adds to the security of the same, we won't get into that just yet. With respect to the different meanings for the different cultures, again, you are absolutely correct, despite using an overly broad brush to paint the picture.
Where you err, however, is to infer the cultural differences in application as evidence of a flaw. It is the responsibility of every pastor who teaches from the Word to discern the contextual meaning of the passage, and translate the same to his audience, in language they are able to understand. The Holy Spirit will do the rest, given the believer's proper orientation/spiritual status.

In your second assertion:
"Imperfect copying and Translation has distorted it enormously from the origional or if it hasnt we have no evidence that it hasnt."
This line of thinking is absurd. You, in essence, are stating an unknown and an unproven, based upon each other.

Your third assertion assumes that what was "officially" determined hadn't already been "officially" in use far before the official determination. That assertion is incorrect. The councils were merely an attempt to 'once for all' the whole affair. Didn't seem to work so well, did it? Doesn't change the fact that orthodoxy will continue, regardless of the power struggles. Jesus Christ controls history.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Your differences are all circular reasoning merely restating the same thing in different ways. In essense, the Church claims that the Bible is divinely inspired AND the Church claims it is the only agent that can properly discern how to read the Bible properly therefore, the Bible is divinely inspired and the Church is the only ones who can read it autho not worth making, let alone discussing. It is also, of course, circular reasoning as well.

1. So you admit your analogy was faulty, then?

2a. My claim was not made in isolation - it's not like I started a new thread with it. It was a response to an earlier post (in fact, yours). So, if you're going to evaluate my claim, you'll need to look at the context of the discussion it was made in. That the words "Christian context" were not used is non-critical - any reasonable reader following the thread will know that we (and the Skip) are talking in a Christian context.

2b. How is it "circular reasoning"? As you said before, you need to make an argument, not merely an assertion. What are the two propositions (or sets of propositions) that imply each other?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Most ancient religious texts written by semi-savages have some degree of historical accuracy. The Bible is not different from others in this regard.

That's a convienient position. It allows you to "believe" the Bible enough to complain about it but reject the parts you don't understand. How useful for you.

DF

Originally posted by DragonFriend
That's a convienient position. It allows you to "believe" the Bible enough to complain about it but reject the parts you don't understand. How useful for you.

DF

Its possible to believe the bible was written 2000 years ago or more
but also believe it was not inspired by a god. So with any book,
there will be perhaps some inspiring words and some schlok so what
is your problem?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Its possible to believe the bible was written 2000 years ago or more
but also believe it was not inspired by a god. So with any book,
there will be perhaps some inspiring words and some schlok so what
is your problem?

That position only works as a concept. If you actually look at the contents of the book, there is no way to come to that conclusion.
The Bible contains prophesy. How can a normal man accurately predict the furture?
Archeology supports it. There has never been found a site that contradicts the Bible. It has confirmed many many things in the Bible, but not once has it contradicted it.
In short, we can see that it's accurate, according to this world, and contains elements from outside of time. How can a book like that be written by ordinary men?

DF