Faith in the Bible is faith in God. It is the Word of God. The Lord Jesus said that scripture is “the word of God” (Mt. 15:6 says “τὸν λόγον Θεοῦ”, “the Word of God.”) If you don’t believe that, then that shows that you don’t believe in Jesus.
Barth was a boring, over-rated theologian.
Of course science does facts, and things that are true.
I
Religious “Truths” are a different matter.
Science does probabilities, not great eternal “Truths”.
You didnt identify anything in the article that contrsdicts
what ive said, its just stated differently than i chose,
especially as i was simplifying it for someone who seemed to me way off the rails.
Are you confident that physical law has been proven?
There aren’t kinds of truth. Religious truths are the same as scientific truth. Something is either true or false.
Yes, like contingency.
Hold my beer.
And the beer of all the Christians who loved Jesus before the NT was completed and canonized.
2 Likes
Before any of it was written down at all for a decade at least.
1 Like
I love Barth for being an unequivocal universalist hiding in plain sight and when asked (by Carson was it?) what the distillation of his giant’s ouevre was, said 'Jesus loves me, this I know, ‘cos the Bible tells me so’.
A gentleman is never bored.
I have faith in the Bible as the word of men yearning Godward, projecting their helpless evil unawares, over a thousand years of evolution from older sources. I have faith that Jesus saw Himself in it even though He isn’t there. None of which invalidates Him as God incarnate. The ultimate posit.
Authentic Paul 20 years later
The first Gospel 40 years later.
The last Gospel ~70 years later.
The last Gospes final redaction (Luke/John) ~80 years later.
Matthew and Luke were probably replacements for Mark, not supplements.
Christians arguing over what books to accept for the first couple hundred years.
A host of non-canonical gospels and other writings. The number gets higher and higher.
A host of spurious writings.
An early church that was urgent in their eschatology (not thinking about preserving records for people 2,000 years later).
The 2nd Epistle of Peter (written ca. 130 not by Peter) starts putting Paul’s work on par with scripture. One data point only. The orthodox canon really starts taking shape in the 2D century ca Irenaeus (180) given gnostic combatants and arguments over the correct books and is slowly solidified over time. Yes, the Muratorian canon is probably a 4th century work that conservative scholars have been far too slow to pick up on.
All these poor Christians for hundreds of years had to experience a faith in Jesus detached from the New Testament which didn’t exist as a concept for hundreds of years. Collections of Paul’s letters were probably circulating by the end of the first century. The only scripture some knew was the Hebrew Scripture, the one that really doesn’t talk about him. Yet here some are 2,000 years later engaging in bibliolatry. Intellectually equating belief in old written texts with belief in the transforming and risen Jesus.
Vinnie
1 Like
Yes, we know this your chosen dogma.
The Lord Jesus called scripture “the Word of God” (Mt. 15:6, John 10:35). So no one can truly believe in Jesus and not believe that scripture is the Word of God.
Your statement doesn’t even make any sense. Why would the people who lived while Jesus was alive somehow love Jesus but not love what He teaches?
Much of that is false. The synoptic gospels were all likely written prior to AD 70. It wouldn’t make sense for Matthew & Luke to be replacements for Mark when they incorporate much of it and don’t contradict it. There’s no evidence that the gospels were still being redacted after their writing and dissemination. That the gnostics and other heretics produced some historical fiction that purported to be like the gospels in no way impacts the reliability of the gospels. There’s no reason to believe that 2nd Peter is not from Peter and so written prior to AD 66. Your reasoning is circular: 2nd Peter has to be written late because it puts Paul on the level as other scripture because, you assume, that no one would do that until late because you assume it’s late.
You don’t even understand my original statement: Jesus called scripture “the Word of God” (Mt. 15:6, John 10:35.) The Old Testament is scripture. You assume that the OT “really doesn’t talk about him.” You assume that because you’re not a believer in Jesus.
Because you’ve established that you believe that you can make assertions with no evidence and that you don’t even believe you need to pretend to provide evidence for your assertions, nothing you write is worth reading. I didn’t read your post.
If you want to have something worth reading, get some integrity.
Of course, the scripture then was OT only, though Jesus reinterpreted a lot of that through his him. Interestingly, he may have also accepted a lot of what we regard as non-canonized writings as well, as some of his teaching seems to draw on common Jewish beliefs outside the OT as we know it.
It takes faith in the process of NT canonization as being completely from the mouth of God, something I sometimes wonder about, and admit I sometimes take some things with a grain of salt. And hope Paul got his coat.
Jesus did not affirm any of the apocrypha (non-canonical writings). None of His teachings drawn on non-canonical writings. He endorsed all of the OT (Law, Prophets and Writings) but never included the apocrypha although He could have done so.
The Lord Jesus also commissioned the Apostles who wrote (or supervised) all of the NT.
I have at least no less than you.
I wouldn’t dream of questioning yours.
Stop . making . ad . hominem . attacks.
Reading is what is needed.
1 Like
Agreed he did not affirm apocrypha, but he called on extra-Biblical Jewish beliefs pretty often. Here is a blog that I came across that lists a bunch. Note I do not agree with the blog author on his conclusions, but his collection in interesting.
Not that I’m aware of. He often critiqued extra-Biblical Jewish beliefs in the light of scripture (such as in Mt. 15:1-6) but that was for the purpose of establishing scripture over tradition.
I agree. There is no excuse for it. I’ve blocked him as I don’t find what he says interesting enough to put up with the bad manners.
1 Like
Only the OT existed at the time and that canon was not fully set yet. Jesus is not saying every verse in the modern Hebrew Scriptures is the literal word of God. He is pointing to Jewish sacred scripture at the time and commands believed to have come from God. Believing that Scripture is Scripture in no way implies or necessitates that anyone has to accept whatever model of inspiration and Christology you base your thoughts on.
Vinnie
1 Like
Yikes! I forgot to add the link to the blog listing a bunch of references to the apocryphal books, pretty interesting stuff in his blog also:
I might add the coffee mugs with verses out of context sold there are hilarious.
1 Like