So says you. I am willing to accept that there are things that I do not yet understand.
Dale
Well i read a comment up there saying that we cant know if John fabricated some stories. So my question is if it is not inspired could John have fabricated the resurrection?
Paul says that if there is no resurrection then we are the most to be pitied. Plus, of course, the resurrection is one of the few things all the Gospels agree on.
John’s Gospel is not chronological in formation. He joins words with actions to make theological points. His “fabrication” would therefor be his usage rather than the actual facts or even words that he quotes Chances are Jesus said those things, or near enough, but not necessarily in the settings or circumstances that John records.
And this is the whole point of a “Gospel” it is theology, not history, or even some sort of journalism. The point is the words and the theology, not the details or the precise history. They might paraphrase, or remember inaccurately the exact words, but what they give is the basis of our faith. They are not trying to deceive, but the are trying to evangelise. They have purpose and agendas and a message which is more important than precision or perfection of detail.
Richard
None of that means that any of it is not true or not inspired.
What is your definition of “Inspired”?
Richard
I started a different thread about inspiration, if you really want to get into that topic: Speaking of the inspired word of God
1 Like
First you have to decide which canon you want to follow. The books in the Apocrypha were considered canonical in the Roman Catholic Church but were never considered canonical in the Hebrew Bible. King James instructed the translators to follow the Bishop’s Bible as closely as possible so they included the Apocrypha in a section between the OT and NT. That doesn’t make them canonical for Protestants.
From:
I have been reading “The Biblical Canon” by Lee Martin McDonald and it is his position that the notion of a closed canon was not known in the earth church. The Jewish canon wasn’t closed until late 2nd Century.
Thank you for your post.
I prefer the NT canon of the Church of the East. I am indifferent as to the inclusion of the apocrypha.
The point that I was making is similar to yours: we each have to assess the options and make a decision of which canon to use.
The resurrection is attested by numerous sources.
If there had been no resurrection, the story of Jesus would have died in the first century.
I’m somewhat surprised this is still going. A lot of traction here.
1 Like
Or a lot of wheel spinning. Depends on your perspective. 
4 Likes
The thread has gone on so long, in my opinion, for one reason:
There is no support in the Bible for the assertion that the Bible claims to be the “Word of God.”
People are just padding the Bible’s resume with a man-made claim never found in scripture.
Even the referenced article by Dr. Longman makes that claim but provides no evidence to support the claim.
More of the same from a feral horse* aficionado. 
*aka mustang
I was in Iceland last week and was really impressed with their horses. The people to horse ratio was about 3 to 1.
Wow, that’s a lot of horses! Did you see any aurora? My son was there last year a saw a couple of amazing displays.
The Northern Lights were AWOL, but I did see lots of other wonders of creation.
1 Like
Yes, it’s a beautiful place!
Wouldn’t the plural of aurora be aurorae? I’m not a language expert–guessing here…
1 Like
You would be correct. 
plural : auroras or aurorae
(Would you believe I really meant it in the singular and my mistake was the preceding word? 
)
1 Like
I think we should use, “message of God”. It might eliminate a lot of arguments on inerrancy and I think more accurately describes what the bible really is.
1 Like