Two witnesses (Bible & Church) and the one who listens

[tzor]

This quote originally comes from Re: Better off: Homosexual or Dead? I think the reply deserves its own thread because it’s not exactly on the topic of the thread.

I do not abide by the morals of a book written 2,000 years ago.

But....it's the word of god. It says so itself.

Really? Where in the Bible does it say that?

Double got you here ... point one the only real reference to the "Word" is in John's Gospel and the "Word" refers to Jesus.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Second got you: The "Bible" is a scripturally modern invention, the correct term at the time was "the scriptures" which in Jewish tradition was divided into the Law, the Prophets and the other Writings. The list of books in scripture was never put into a canonical book; debates over what should be included lasted for centuries. The Didache was in the early lists but not in the later ones, for example.

For it to be the word of god it does not have to explicitly refer to itself as such. If it says it is divinely inspired and what god thinks about things then it's the word of god. I mean, I don't write in every post I make "This is my post" but that doesn't mean they're not my posts.


Second point just makes it funnier. Taking everything literally in the bible is silly when it has changed over time to a great degree.

This may sound like a silly notion, but there is a vast difference between the “word of God” and the “word inspired by God.” One of the biggest problems that Christianity faced over the years was the semi-forced integration of Islamic ideas into Christianity. In Islam, the Koran is literally the dictated word of God. It is literally considered the “post” of God.

Generally in the books of the Bible, the only “dictated” works are the apocalyptic ones, and even then it is mostly an angel doing the speaking. For the most part, the words of the Bible are “inspired by” not “dictated by” God.

Have you ever seen the old Flip Wilson skit about Moses? In it, Flip as Moses, just doesn’t get the whole Arc thing. What’s an Arc? What’s a cubit? The notion of scripture being inspired is that through the writings of men, God reveals himself to men. “The Bible tells us how to go to heaven; not how the heavens go.” (From a nice cardinal who gets totally forgotten in the whole Galileo Controversy.)


From here, I think we need to go back to the Bible because I think it’s important to understand the basic argument before going on. Let’s look at a passage in the Gospel of John, “Even in your law it is written that the testimony of two men can be verified.” (John 8:17 – you do realize that this was the last book written in the now accepted canon of the New Testament) In the same manner that the Spirit must inspire both the writer and the reader, one also needs to have not one but two testimonies. So let me break these into the two arguments they are.

In the first case although all scripture is useful, one still needs the inspiration of the Spirit to understand the writings inspired by the Spirit. As we hear from the Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of the Candace, "How can I (understand the scriptures), unless someone instructs me?" (Acts 8:31) And likewise in the writings of Peter, “In them (the writings of Paul) there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures.” (2 Peter 3:16)

This is a problem, is it not? It is not, because we need the testimony of two, not one witnesses. The first is the Bible, but what is the second? “But if I (Paul) should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.” (1 Timothy 3:15)

This is why the canon of the Bible is not in and of itself a book to the Bible. The Church (one can get into the nit picking details of this word at a later time), which is the bulwark of truth is the one who testifies to the cannon of scripture. The scripture in turn testifies to the testimony of the Church.

Thus we have two sets of two witnesses. On the one dimension we have the Bible and the Church; on the other dimension we have the inspiration to the writer / speaker and the inspiration to the reader / hearer.

So is this where I draw the snappy conclusion that using Bible passages to an Atheist’s argument is like making half an argument to a deaf man? I suppose.

[bradleybadly]

Have you ever seen the old Flip Wilson skit about Moses? In it, Flip as Moses, just doesn’t get the whole Arc thing. What’s an Arc?

Uh, I think you mean Bill Cosby on the skit. My dad has an old VHS tape of that skit. I also think you meant Noah. I'm pretty sure it was Noah who built the ark and it was Moses who got the 10 commandments.

I'm reading the rest of your post and will probably have some thoughts later.

[bradleybadly]

The "Bible" is a scripturally modern invention, the correct term at the time was "the scriptures" which in Jewish tradition was divided into the Law, the Prophets and the other Writings. The list of books in scripture was never put into a canonical book; debates over what should be included lasted for centuries. The Didache was in the early lists but not in the later ones, for example.

For it to be the word of god it does not have to explicitly refer to itself as such. If it says it is divinely inspired and what god thinks about things then it's the word of god. I mean, I don't write in every post I make "This is my post" but that doesn't mean they're not my posts.

Ok, so here's my problem with this point of yours from another thread. I don't know the whole history of when which book was added or made part of the entire Bible. Perhaps I should before I totally reject it. But the thing is that you can say that this book is "canonical" or "inspired" or whatever you want to say it's from God. I don't really care. What I do care about is having any "book" or "scripture" claiming to have the absolute authority of the words of God or God's message to people.

Who was the person or people who determined that it was "canonical"? What makes their opinions about what is or isn't "canonical" any more valid than mine? Who's to say you can't add a few books here and eliminate a few there to make it "canonical"? What happens when a new group of people say that there's a new standard for "canonicalness"? (I made up that last word cause I don't know a better one).

Basically, any group of people can get together and write something and call it "inspired". I could get my daughter's Dr. Seuss book Green Eggs and Ham out and say it's "canonical". All I have to do is get a bunch of people with special "insight" to agree with me and we've got ourselves a council and possibly a new religion.

[tzor]

Have you ever seen the old Flip Wilson skit about Moses? In it, Flip as Moses, just doesn’t get the whole Arc thing. What’s an Arc?

Uh, I think you mean Bill Cosby on the skit. My dad has an old VHS tape of that skit. I also think you meant Noah. I'm pretty sure it was Noah who built the ark and it was Moses who got the 10 commandments.

I'm reading the rest of your post and will probably have some thoughts later.

You're right. I was batting 0 out of 2 on that one.

[tzor]

Who was the person or people who determined that it was "canonical"? What makes their opinions about what is or isn't "canonical" any more valid than mine? Who's to say you can't add a few books here and eliminate a few there to make it "canonical"? What happens when a new group of people say that there's a new standard for "canonicalness"? (I made up that last word cause I don't know a better one).

Just as the Spirit inspires the writers, the Spirit inspires the readers. Thus it is the Church, the collected assembly of believers in union with the Spirit who through the centuries, discussed, wrote about, and eventually came to a general agreement as to the list of books.

It is also important to note that just because one didn’t make the list of scripture one suddenly becomes crap. In the Divine Office (known today as the Liturgy of the Hours) there is the “Office of Readings.” In addition to the psalms and scripture there is also a “long hagiographical passage” that can come from an account of a saint’s martyrdom, or from the writings of a saint or early church father, or even from the documents of the Second Vatican Council.

[bradleybadly]

Who was the person or people who determined that it was "canonical"? What makes their opinions about what is or isn't "canonical" any more valid than mine? Who's to say you can't add a few books here and eliminate a few there to make it "canonical"? What happens when a new group of people say that there's a new standard for "canonicalness"? (I made up that last word cause I don't know a better one).

Just as the Spirit inspires the writers, the Spirit inspires the readers. Thus it is the Church, the collected assembly of believers in union with the Spirit who through the centuries, discussed, wrote about, and eventually came to a general agreement as to the list of books.

It is also important to note that just because one didn’t make the list of scripture one suddenly becomes crap. In the Divine Office (known today as the Liturgy of the Hours) there is the “Office of Readings.” In addition to the psalms and scripture there is also a “long hagiographical passage” that can come from an account of a saint’s martyrdom, or from the writings of a saint or early church father, or even from the documents of the Second Vatican Council.

Look, I'm not trying to be a jerk towards you, but that still doesn't jive. The people in the Church might have been very smarted and learned people. But they are the ones deciding what is "in" and what is "out". (I will grant you that they may have taken the job very seriously). Where did they get their authority from? - that very same book (or books) which they themselves are deeming canonical. It's circular.

[PLAYER57832]

Haven't had time to fully study Tzor's post, but the answer for the New Testament was the cannon. They were a group of men, yes. The standard they used was that to be scripture, it had to be from someone who actually saw Christ. Having seen and reported what Christ said accurately was the premise.

The greater answer is the one that almost has no answer. That is, it is much like belief in God itself. Those who belief, see the proof and see everything around as support and need no more. Those who do not.. can not be convinced through practical means. In the case of the Bible, read it and compare it to what YOU believe and YOU feel. That is really the best answer. Either it will "speak" to you, or it will not.

Sorry, that's the best I can do for right now. Maybe when I am not sick and so forth, I can do better.

[tzor]

Look, I'm not trying to be a jerk towards you, but that still doesn't jive. The people in the Church might have been very smarted and learned people. But they are the ones deciding what is "in" and what is "out". (I will grant you that they may have taken the job very seriously). Where did they get their authority from? - that very same book (or books) which they themselves are deeming canonical. It's circular.

That's OK, it's not supposed to be definitive. Their authority comes from the Holy Spirit, but like the writers of the scriptures being "inspired" and not "dictated" the people who debated what should be in the list and what should not were in time inspired by the Holy Spirit and in time they worked out the list. The whole thing hinges on both ends from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. If you don't believe in that inspiration then neither the books nor the list have any "authority."

[bradleybadly]

Fair enough

[MeDeFe]

Look, I'm not trying to be a jerk towards you, but that still doesn't jive. The people in the Church might have been very smarted and learned people. But they are the ones deciding what is "in" and what is "out". (I will grant you that they may have taken the job very seriously). Where did they get their authority from? - that very same book (or books) which they themselves are deeming canonical. It's circular.

That's OK, it's not supposed to be definitive. Their authority comes from the Holy Spirit, but like the writers of the scriptures being "inspired" and not "dictated" the people who debated what should be in the list and what should not were in time inspired by the Holy Spirit and in time they worked out the list. The whole thing hinges on both ends from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. If you don't believe in that inspiration then neither the books nor the list have any "authority."

So first we have to assume that god exists. Without anything to back it up, certainly not the bible, because that's what we're working towards here.
Then we have to accept that god inspires people, without anything to back that up.
Then we have to assume that the people who wrote down the scriptures were divinely inspired, and nothing to support that.
The people who went on to edit the scriptures into the bible were also supposedly divinely inspired, but there's nothing to back that up either.

That's an awful lot of assumptions.

[Uncle Waldo]

Etheopian Eunuch huh? So, that's what he said? Asshole.

[PLAYER57832]

Look, I'm not trying to be a jerk towards you, but that still doesn't jive. The people in the Church might have been very smarted and learned people. But they are the ones deciding what is "in" and what is "out". (I will grant you that they may have taken the job very seriously). Where did they get their authority from? - that very same book (or books) which they themselves are deeming canonical. It's circular.

That's OK, it's not supposed to be definitive. Their authority comes from the Holy Spirit, but like the writers of the scriptures being "inspired" and not "dictated" the people who debated what should be in the list and what should not were in time inspired by the Holy Spirit and in time they worked out the list. The whole thing hinges on both ends from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. If you don't believe in that inspiration then neither the books nor the list have any "authority."

So first we have to assume that god exists. Without anything to back it up, certainly not the bible, because that's what we're working towards here.
Then we have to accept that god inspires people, without anything to back that up.
Then we have to assume that the people who wrote down the scriptures were divinely inspired, and nothing to support that.
The people who went on to edit the scriptures into the bible were also supposedly divinely inspired, but there's nothing to back that up either.

That's an awful lot of assumptions.

True if you only accept practical proof. Spiritual proof is more ephemeral, but no less real to those who experience it.

[jonesthecurl]

Haven't had time to fully study Tzor's post, but the answer for the New Testament was the cannon. They were a group of men, yes. The standard they used was that to be scripture, it had to be from someone who actually saw Christ. Having seen and reported what Christ said accurately was the premise.

The greater answer is the one that almost has no answer. That is, it is much like belief in God itself. Those who belief, see the proof and see everything around as support and need no more. Those who do not.. can not be convinced through practical means. In the case of the Bible, read it and compare it to what YOU believe and YOU feel. That is really the best answer. Either it will "speak" to you, or it will not.

Sorry, that's the best I can do for right now. Maybe when I am not sick and so forth, I can do better.

First:Get better soon mate.

Second: then how is anything by St Paul in the Bible?

[BigBallinStalin]

Look, I'm not trying to be a jerk towards you, but that still doesn't jive. The people in the Church might have been very smarted and learned people. But they are the ones deciding what is "in" and what is "out". (I will grant you that they may have taken the job very seriously). Where did they get their authority from? - that very same book (or books) which they themselves are deeming canonical. It's circular.

That's OK, it's not supposed to be definitive. Their authority comes from the Holy Spirit, but like the writers of the scriptures being "inspired" and not "dictated" the people who debated what should be in the list and what should not were in time inspired by the Holy Spirit and in time they worked out the list. The whole thing hinges on both ends from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. If you don't believe in that inspiration then neither the books nor the list have any "authority."

So first we have to assume that god exists. Without anything to back it up, certainly not the bible, because that's what we're working towards here.
Then we have to accept that god inspires people, without anything to back that up.
Then we have to assume that the people who wrote down the scriptures were divinely inspired, and nothing to support that.
The people who went on to edit the scriptures into the bible were also supposedly divinely inspired, but there's nothing to back that up either.

That's an awful lot of assumptions.

True if you only accept practical proof. Spiritual proof is more ephemeral, but no less real to those who experience it.

[Regarding Player's response to MeDeFe's]

[Neoteny]

Look, I'm not trying to be a jerk towards you, but that still doesn't jive. The people in the Church might have been very smarted and learned people. But they are the ones deciding what is "in" and what is "out". (I will grant you that they may have taken the job very seriously). Where did they get their authority from? - that very same book (or books) which they themselves are deeming canonical. It's circular.

That's OK, it's not supposed to be definitive. Their authority comes from the Holy Spirit, but like the writers of the scriptures being "inspired" and not "dictated" the people who debated what should be in the list and what should not were in time inspired by the Holy Spirit and in time they worked out the list. The whole thing hinges on both ends from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. If you don't believe in that inspiration then neither the books nor the list have any "authority."

So first we have to assume that god exists. Without anything to back it up, certainly not the bible, because that's what we're working towards here.
Then we have to accept that god inspires people, without anything to back that up.
Then we have to assume that the people who wrote down the scriptures were divinely inspired, and nothing to support that.
The people who went on to edit the scriptures into the bible were also supposedly divinely inspired, but there's nothing to back that up either.

That's an awful lot of assumptions.

True if you only accept practical proof. Spiritual proof is more ephemeral, but no less real to those who experience it.

Then we have to assume "spiritual proof," whatever that is, is reliable.

[jonesthecurl]

If it requires divine inspiration to understand divinely inspired writing, can one be divinely inspired by reading something that isn't divinely inspired?

[PLAYER57832]

Haven't had time to fully study Tzor's post, but the answer for the New Testament was the cannon. They were a group of men, yes. The standard they used was that to be scripture, it had to be from someone who actually saw Christ. Having seen and reported what Christ said accurately was the premise.

The greater answer is the one that almost has no answer. That is, it is much like belief in God itself. Those who belief, see the proof and see everything around as support and need no more. Those who do not.. can not be convinced through practical means. In the case of the Bible, read it and compare it to what YOU believe and YOU feel. That is really the best answer. Either it will "speak" to you, or it will not.

Sorry, that's the best I can do for right now. Maybe when I am not sick and so forth, I can do better.

First:Get better soon mate.

Second: then how is anything by St Paul in the Bible?

Paul saw Christ after Christ's death. (and thank you)

If it requires divine inspiration to understand divinely inspired writing, can one be divinely inspired by reading something that isn't divinely inspired?

One can be divinely inspired by anything, but you have to be careful it truly is the "divine" and not anothe influence.

And therein lies the debate...

[BigBallinStalin]

If it requires divine inspiration to understand divinely inspired writing, can one be divinely inspired by reading something that isn't divinely inspired?

I'm divinely inspired, who else wants some?

[tzor]

Second: then how is anything by St Paul in the Bible?

I'm going to argue for a lot more complicated view of how scripture got into the cannon, but since the question of Apostle comes into play here as well, Paul qualifies by the encounter on the Road to Emmaus. That was his story and he stuck to it.

Please note that none of the Synoptic Gospels were written by Apostles (Matthew, Mark and Luke) and John may have been written more by his followers than from the Apostle himself. By the time it was written, young Johnny (more than likely 14 at the time of the crucifixion) he was anywhere from 51 years old to 81 years old (estimates place the Gospel as being written from the 70's to the 90's).

[tzor]

So first we have to assume that god exists. Without anything to back it up, certainly not the bible, because that's what we're working towards here.
Then we have to accept that god inspires people, without anything to back that up.
Then we have to assume that the people who wrote down the scriptures were divinely inspired, and nothing to support that.
The people who went on to edit the scriptures into the bible were also supposedly divinely inspired, but there's nothing to back that up either.

That's an awful lot of assumptions.

Yes it is. This isn't a Q.E.D. we are talking about here. This is faith; revelation; and trust. Sort of the same way most people approached their first year of college physics. You don't even get a hint of the differential equations behind the equations; you just get a cheat sheet of equations.

The Gospel of Halliday and Resnick

[daddy1gringo]

If it requires divine inspiration to understand divinely inspired writing, can one be divinely inspired by reading something that isn't divinely inspired?

I think that's tzor's point. It has to be God working in your heart, independently of the written Word, to make a person receptive of it. Like what I said in the "evidence" thread: one hears the call, senses that there is "something" before he considers what the "something" is. John 6:44: "No one can come to me unless the Father, who sent me, draws Him..."

That's the "second witness" tzor was talking about, I think. Something intangible in you that turns on a light bulb when you hear it and says, "that's truth."

Sorry if I'm mis-representing your point, t-z. Would you agree with this?

[Ace Rimmer]

Yes it is. This isn't a Q.E.D. we are talking about here. This is faith; revelation; and trust. Sort of the same way most people approached their first year of college physics. You don't even get a hint of the differential equations behind the equations; you just get a cheat sheet of equations.

The Gospel of Halliday and Resnick

But eventually you can see the proof behind DiffEQ - not so with the bible without faith.

That's the "second witness" tzor was talking about, I think. Something intangible in you that turns on a light bulb when you hear it and says, "that's truth."

Well there are many people whose version of "truth" varies from mine on issues other than religion. If someone ignores all the evidence for something (holocaust, Obama's birth certificate, vaccinations, etc) then why would I believe that their faith is divinely inspired instead of delusional? That doesn't even get into truly delusional people...

[Timminz]

So is this where I draw the snappy conclusion that using Bible passages to an Atheist’s argument is like making half an argument to a deaf man? I suppose.

Using bible passages to any argument is useless. Unless you're arguing over what's written in the bible.

[daddy1gringo]

That's the "second witness" tzor was talking about, I think. Something intangible in you that turns on a light bulb when you hear it and says, "that's truth."

Well there are many people whose version of "truth" varies from mine on issues other than religion. If someone ignores all the evidence for something (holocaust, Obama's birth certificate, vaccinations, etc) then why would I believe that their faith is divinely inspired instead of delusional? That doesn't even get into truly delusional people...

Well, as far as that goes, I agree with you. My point was that at least the beginning of believing that there is "something" more than what you see with your eyes and is explainable by science, doesn't generally happen because of what someone else says or believes. It's something personal that has to happen within yourself. At that point, the "something" could be the Biblical God or some Tao/Oversoul concept, or whatever, but hopefully with the conviction that there is "something" comes a hunger to know that "something". I think an honest and clear investigation will lead one to Jesus.

The problem, as I mentioned in the "evidence" thread is a convenient ground-shifting that short-circuits the process. The thing that convinces one that there is "something" doesn't necessarily prove that it is Jesus. The case for Jesus doesn't necessarily prove there is "something". Too many people slosh back and forth and use each one as an excuse to avoid the other.

[jonesthecurl]

and again we come to the point that there are many people convinced by "something in their heart", beyond all proof or disproof, that their vision of god(s) is the real one.

which has always been my problem with belief/faith.