Originally posted by twhiteheadActually i don't know if you noticed, perhaps it escaped you in your excitement to discredit me, i did not write the words contained in 2 Timothy chapter 3 verses 16 and 17, Paul did, its not me who is making the claim that the Bible is inspired, it itself is, so i would appreciate if you kept that in mind, when trying to discredit it. i have no problem admitting i am wrong, we all make mistakes are imperfect etc etc, so what the deal? what i do object to and i have seen nothing so far in any of the arguments, if you could call them that, to dissuade me otherwise, is that instead of providing anything with substance you resort to personal attacks and attempts to discredit the author, that's whats laughable.
I could say the same about everything you wrote. The difference is I am willing to discuss and argue anything I have said, whereas you clearly wish to back out without admitting that you are wrong.
The claim that all the books of the Bible are the word of God based solely on the argument that one verse (when interpreted in a specific way) says so, is s than simply saying that anyone who disagrees with me should keep their opinions to themselves?
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
this confession of yours really betrays how much you actually don't know about the Christian Greek scriptures, it is logical, it is fundamental to the argument about the existence of Christ as to whether he was a real personage or otherwise because the majority of what we know is contained in the Gospel accounts, is it not? therefore if we can prove the integrity of the scriptures on the basis of their inspiration then we can have confidence in the existence of Christ, the gospels being the reference based on their integrity.
Whether or not the Gospels can be reliably used to establish historical data about Jesus doesn't
necessarily diminish their utility in establishing that Jesus existed. Their historicity is only valuable
inasmuch as we make theological claims (what was Jesus' relationship to God, what was He trying
to promote, &c).
As to your rather purile, basless and frankly erroneous assertions that the letters written by Paul were not of his own hand i have nothing to say, but get a life.
What are you, 14 or something? Get a life? There is nothing childish about the claim that the
Pastoral Epistles were written pseudonymously and to be sure it's not 'baseless.' As I said,
there are very few scholars who contest the claim, and of those who do, they begin with the
a priori dogma that the Scriptures cannot err, which is not a scholarly position at all.
In any event, my argument above was granting for your sake that St Paul wrote II Timothy.
Given that 'St Paul's' letter could not have been part of the body of Scripture that was studied
since infancy of the reader, 'St Paul' could not have been including his own letter as 'Scripture.'
Therefore, since it is not Scripture, it is not necessarily 'inspired.' Since one is not obligated to
view it as 'inspired,' one need not take its claims as free from error. Since the claim that
'Scripture is inspired' is contained in a document that may not be free from error, that statement
may not be free from error.
It's very simple, actually. Using II Timothy to justify the inspired nature of Christian Scripture
(or of Hebrew Scripture, for that matter) is a flawed argument.
Nemesio
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe 'Bible' didn't exist when the author wrote those verses. Therefore, those verses cannot refer
Actually i don't know if you noticed, perhaps it escaped you in your excitement to discredit me, i did not write the words contained in 2 Timothy chapter 3 verses 16 and 17, Paul did, its not me who is making the claim that the Bible is inspired, it itself is, so i would appreciate if you kept that in mind, when trying to discredit it.
to the Bible.
The Hebrew canon hadn't even been established at that point. It was established in the last decade
of the first century, during which they 'cursed the name of Christ.'
If you are referring to the Septuagint, then I guess you also embrace the inspired status of I and
II Maccabees, Baruch, the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Tobit and Judith, right?
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioI disagree with your logic there. The writer of II Timothy does not state that the scriptures he is referring to are the only works inspired by God, so I don't think your conclusion is valid.
Furthermore, by definition, II Timothy couldn't be regarded as Scripture because none of the
original readers obviously could have known it in their infancy. Therefore, its claims cannot be
inspired themselves. Therefore, its contents cannot be used to make dogmatic claims. Therefore,
one cannot believe that the complete contents of the Bible is inspired by God.
Nemesio
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAt no point did that escape my notice, but what seems to have escaped yours is the fact that that very claim (which is yours) is under dispute. If you still dont get it:
Actually i don't know if you noticed, perhaps it escaped you in your excitement to discredit me, i did not write the words contained in 2 Timothy chapter 3 verses 16 and 17, Paul did, its not me who is making the claim that the Bible is inspired, it itself is,
Robbies claim: the Bible claims it is inspired by God.
My Claim: the Bible does not make any such claim. You are interpreting the verse to suit yourself.
what i do object to and i have seen nothing so far in any of the arguments, if you could call them that, to dissuade me otherwise, is that instead of providing anything with substance you resort to personal attacks and attempts to discredit the author, that's whats laughable.
And what would you call your above sentence if nothing other than an attempt to discredit me without actual making any argument to support your position?
My argument is simple: If a document contains a sentence that claims the whole document is true then there are only two possibilities, the sentence is true (and so is the document) or the sentence is false (and thus at least part of the document is too). That is really the only thing we can conclude from such a sentence. At no point and in no way does the existence of that sentence increase the likelihood of the rest of the document being true.
At best the sentence may have value after evaluating the credentials of the author of that sentence, for which we must also identify the author of the sentence, a topic you seem unwilling to discuss.
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou are correct; my first post was adequately clear. But I did tighten this up in the second post:
I disagree with your logic there. The writer of II Timothy does not state that the scriptures he is referring to are the only works inspired by God, so I don't think your conclusion is valid.
...Since one is not obligated to view it as 'inspired,' one need not take its claims as free from error.
Since the claim that 'Scripture is inspired' is contained in a document that may not be free from
error, that statement may not be free from error.
Furthermore, the implication of your (accurate) comment is that the Bible need not be the only
document that is inspired, but that there could be any number of inspired texts.
Nemesio
so is any one here a person who reads the bible to an audience because if anyone here does then what is it like does everybody listen do some people droft off into la la land. is it frustarating or does everyone listen with eye contact., does anyone read the bible or just has learnt and knows alot about the bilble but doesnt even use the information.