Christians: How do you know which books of the bible are "inspired?"

[nPeace]

I'll just say that I am Christian, but with strong reservations. Humanity has really mucked up this worship of our Creator. My KJV has 66 books, though I do not rely on JUST the Bible. I accept the OT as it presently is, but have severe reservations about parts of the NT. Christians seem obsessive about emphasizing certain things, and ignoring others, and that undermines the credibility of the book. I am aware of and read at one time, documents that had the fate of Jesus Christ two ways. I have not gotten to research the sources of both documents.

You seem sincere and honest. That's a good thing.
Could I ask which parts of the "NT" you find Christians seem obsessive about emphasizing and ignoring others?
Because I believe in sincerity and honesty, and like to give consideration to other views.

Perhaps paranoia about beliefs is simply smart. Speaking from the depth of my own ignorance about some things, the folk who came up with Celibacy for Priests made a huge error and have failed to remedy it for nearly 1000 years. And now in the news, we see the grievous consequences. There are other places where belief systems have departed from the truth. After all, we are humans and not perfect. And, I'm not singling out the Catholic Church.

I agree. Do you mind giving me one or more of those other places where belief systems have departed from the truth?

 

[Ellen Brown]

This is exactly the reason I went through the trouble of getting and organizing the information.

New Testament - Wikipedia
All the works that eventually became incorporated into the New Testament are believed to have been written no later than around 120 AD,. John A. T. Robinson, Dan Wallace, and William F. Albright dated all the books of the New Testament before 70 AD. Others give a final date of 80 AD,or at 96 AD.

Jesus - Wikipedia
Canonical gospels
According to the Marcan priority, the first to be written was the Gospel of Mark (written AD 60–75), followed by the Gospel of Matthew (AD 65–85), the Gospel of Luke (AD 65–95), and the Gospel of John (AD 75–100).

Gospel of John - Wikipedia
Composition
The gospel of John went through two to three stages, or "editions", before reaching its current form around AD 90–110. It arose in a Jewish Christian community probably located in Ephesus in modern Turkey, although other possibilities include Antioch (Syria), Palestine, and Alexandria (Egypt).

Apostolic Age - Wikipedia
The Apostolic Age of the history of Christianity is traditionally regarded as the period of the Twelve Apostles, dating from the Great Commission of the Apostles by the risen Jesus in Jerusalem around 33 AD until the death of the last Apostle, believed to be John the Apostlein Anatolia c. 100.

Gospel of John
The work is anonymous, although it identifies an unnamed "disciple whom Jesus loved" as the source of its traditions. It is closely related in style and content to the three Johannine epistles, and most scholars treat the four books, along with the Book of Revelation, as a single corpus of Johannine literature, albeit not from the same author.

The Johannine epistles, the Epistles of John, or the Letters of John are three of the catholic epistles of the New Testament, thought to have been written AD 85–100. Most scholars agree that all three letters are written by the same author, although there is debate on who that author is.


Notice, the source says "The gospel of John went through two to three stages, or "editions", before reaching its current form around AD 90–110."
Hence a period, leading up to...

We have dates given from 70 to 96 CE, and 75 to 100. [John supposedly died around 100 CE.]

I gave a probability of 40 AD, but of course I can't prove that. John would have been 30 at that time, so I think that makes my pick wrong. Uh... Sorry.

Since they don't know. Is it okay if I choose 60 / 65 CE. to be fair?

Mashallah, you appear to have done lots of research.

From the beginning of my belief in 1974, I've never believed in the Trinity, and those who disagree with me can be quite vehement.

I don't know for sure when the Bible as a collection of Books, existed, but one source says 600 AD. So, the last sentence of the Book of Revelation, to me, simply means that the Book of Revelation can not be added to or edited. A few groups, like the Mormons depend on the idea or they could not exist.

What is your view on these matters?

 

[Ellen Brown]

You seem sincere and honest. That's a good thing.
Could I ask which parts of the "NT" you find Christians seem obsessive about emphasizing and ignoring others?
Because I believe in sincerity and honesty, and like to give consideration to other views.


I agree. Do you mind giving me one or more of those other places where belief systems have departed from the truth?

This is my opinion and I am not ordained in any way, and hold no degrees in religion. I think the JW are not correct, and depict an angry God. I think the Mormons started well but then violated their own books. Islam went off the rails after the death of Muhammad PBUH.

Some think that we have to be holy enough for Jesus to return. I think perhaps that our profound weaknesses will be obvious.

 

[Subduction Zone]

First, I am not cherry picking.
Second, you can't be serious. There are different opinions, and you pick the ones you like. I think you know what this is called.
Third, I have no problem with if it was written 50, 60, 70. It was written. No problem for me.
Fourth the Dating methods are not accurate. they don't have a built in history-time-lie-detector, and even lie detectors aren't accurate....and I know you don't believe in magic.
Fifth, your uses of the words 'probably',and 'highly unlikely' only supports what I am saying.
Sixth, ...Uh let me think about that one.

First, you are. You are picking the date most convenient to you though the vast majority of biblical scholars would simply say that you are wrong.

Second, yes there are different opinions. Those based solely on religious needs tend to be the worst. If you need the Bible to be a certain age for it to be true then it is almost certainly not true.

Third, the most important parts were written later than that.

Fourth, that is correct. That is why they study the books of the New Testament for events that tell us that they were written after those events.

Fifth, no they do not. Those words only give you a glimmer of hope that you abuse. I need to remind you that Christian "apologists" tend to be liars for Jesus. You don't want to be one of them. Once again, if the Bible needs liars to defend it it is almost certainly wrong.

Sixth, don't worry, if you do I can explain why you are wrong again.

 

[nPeace]

Mashallah, you appear to have done lots of research.

From the beginning of my belief in 1974, I've never believed in the Trinity, and those who disagree with me can be quite vehement.

I don't know for sure when the Bible as a collection of Books, existed, but one source says 600 AD. So, the last sentence of the Book of Revelation, to me, simply means that the Book of Revelation can not be added to or edited. A few groups, like the Mormons depend on the idea or they could not exist.

What is your view on these matters?

Mashallah
I like that. You just taught me something new.
That's two new things I learned today.

Mashallah, I hope you are not lazy when it comes to reading.
I love reading, researching, and learning - my favorite activities.

I have at least four links that can get you started, but you can let me know if you prefer to read through the information, or if you want me to pull and organize the parts you are interested in.

I don't mind doing that for you.
Which would you prefer - the links or specific information?

Thanks,

 

[WalterTrull]

Impressed by all the different inerrant readings? I am too,
in a way. Want to learn more of them? No!

Interesting how we all think we're right. Well, we are in a way. We're looking at the truth, we just don't understand it. There is something to be said for comparing all the views. My hunch is that's why there are so many of us. Compare the views. Try to find the commonality.

 

[Audie]

Interesting how we all think we're right. Well, we are in a way. We're looking at the truth, we just don't understand it. There is something to be said for comparing all the views. My hunch is that's why there are so many of us. Compare the views. Try to find the commonality.

In theoty, yes; but also, in theory, no.

 

[nPeace]

This is my opinion and I am not ordained in any way, and hold no degrees in religion. I think the JW are not correct, and depict an angry God. I think the Mormons started well but then violated their own books. Islam went off the rails after the death of Muhammad PBUH.

Some think that we have to be holy enough for Jesus to return. I think perhaps that our profound weaknesses will be obvious.

I appreciate that.
We all have reasons why we don't agree with something and agree with another. I like to know what others believe.

I don't believe in many things taught by and accepted by many people, but I think it's a good thing when we can discuss it - even if at the end we don't agree.

I'd like to hear a few things you think JWs are not correct in, and where the depict an angry God.

 

[nPeace]

First, you are. You are picking the date most convenient to you though the vast majority of biblical scholars would simply say that you are wrong.

Second, yes there are different opinions. Those based solely on religious needs tend to be the worst. If you need the Bible to be a certain age for it to be true then it is almost certainly not true.

Third, the most important parts were written later than that.

Fourth, that is correct. That is why they study the books of the New Testament for events that tell us that they were written after those events.

Fifth, no they do not. Those words only give you a glimmer of hope that you abuse. I need to remind you that Christian "apologists" tend to be liars for Jesus. You don't want to be one of them. Once again, if the Bible needs liars to defend it it is almost certainly wrong.

Sixth, don't worry, if you do I can explain why you are wrong again.

SZ, be honest. Will anyone who believes contrary to you ever be right? Why don't you prove everything you just said, because you are right, aren't you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

SZ, be honest. Will anyone who believes contrary to you ever be right? Why don't you prove everything you just said, because you are right, aren't you?

Yes quite often I have been shown to be wrong and admitted it. But when I am clearly correct, and supported by the very sources that you referred to, why would I say that I was wrong?

 

[nPeace]

Yes quite often I have been shown to be wrong and admitted it. But when I am clearly correct, and supported by the very sources that you referred to, why would I say that I was wrong?

What were you correct about? Remind me again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What were you correct about? Remind me again.

Pretty much everything in our recent arguments. The date of some of the books, especially of the gospels of the New Testament are much older than you believe.


As a Christian you should strive to be honest about your faith. Being dishonest is an insult to your God, if he exists.

 

[nPeace]

Pretty much everything in our recent arguments. The date of some of the books, especially of the gospels of the New Testament are much older than you believe.


As a Christian you should strive to be honest about your faith. Being dishonest is an insult to your God, if he exists.

Okay. I get that Atheist are honest and Christians are liars according to the Gospel of God haters. No need to keep preaching it. I am actually sick of the sermon already.

The dates given for the Gospels are different. There are different opinions. No one can determine the exact date.
I think you agreed to that.

Specifically the Gospel of John, the dates are given as before 70 AD or 80 or 90 or 100 or 110, but before 120 AD. Which means the date can also be 60, or before.
Apparently 00% of the "New Testament" was completed by the first century.

So what did you get correct?

 

[Ellen Brown]

I appreciate that.
We all have reasons why we don't agree with something and agree with another. I like to know what others believe.

I don't believe in many things taught by and accepted by many people, but I think it's a good thing when we can discuss it - even if at the end we don't agree.

I'd like to hear a few things you think JWs are not correct in, and where the depict an angry God.

Why didn't you just say you were JW?

 

[nPeace]

@Ellen Brown
I'll give you the links.
Later, when I have time, I will organize the specific information for you.
Shalom.

Septuagint - Wikipedia
Deuterocanonical books - Wikipedia
New Testament - Wikipedia
Antilegomena - Wikipedia
Development of the New Testament canon - Wikipedia

 

[nPeace]

Why didn't you just say you were JW?

I thought you knew, and you didn't ask.
Is that a problem? You don't talk to them?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Okay. I get that Atheist are honest and Christians are liars according to the Gospel of God haters. No need to keep preaching it. I am actually sick of the sermon already.

The dates given for the Gospels are different. There are different opinions. No one can determine the exact date.
I think you agreed to that.

Specifically the Gospel of John, the dates are given as before 70 AD or 80 or 90 or 100 or 110, but before 120 AD. Which means the date can also be 60, or before.
Apparently 00% of the "New Testament" was completed by the first century.

So what did you get correct?

Not all for either group. But when you cherry picked your dates that your chose. And no, the gospel of John was finished before 110 CE and after 90 CE. Instead of grasping at dates from thin air they support their claims:

"90–110 CE, the upper date based on textual evidence that the gospel was known in the early 2nd century, and the lower on an internal reference to the expulsion of Christians from the synagogues.[75]"

 

[Ellen Brown]

I thought you knew, and you didn't ask.
Is that a problem? You don't talk to them?

When I say this, they'll be on me like fire ants. I recently came out of a 6 year involvement with the Mormons, 7 years researching Islam, and 33 years as a Fundy Christian. At this point I a not about to submit myself to yet ANOTHER religion that wants to bend my mind, control me, demean me, and all sorts of other things. I'm not taking risks or trusting anyone too much. That's why I am really distant. I can talk to MY God and I don't need someone who says they can help me to prove himself wrong.

 

[Katzpur]

Even if one or two errors slips in, as long as God sees them as no serious threat, he may well decide to leave them, because 1) they can serve as a means of determining those who genuinely and humbly search for truth - and he can definitely use his spirit to help them, and 2) God allows corruption to take its course, without intervening, but at the same time acting accordingly to maneuver each situation, to the end that his will be done.

And I basically agree with this statement. My only question to you would be this: Should God decide not to "leave them," exactly what do you think He'd do to get rid of them?

 

[nPeace]

When I say this, they'll be on me like fire ants. I recently came out of a 6 year involvement with the Mormons, 7 years researching Islam, and 33 years as a Fundy Christian. At this point I a not about to submit myself to yet ANOTHER religion that wants to bend my mind, control me, demean me, and all sorts of other things. I'm not taking risks or trusting anyone too much. That's why I am really distant. I can talk to MY God and I don't need someone who says they can help me to prove himself wrong.

I don't think anyone will jump on you for your opinion.
I talk with all persons. When I talk with them, I expect that they have their own beliefs. My aim is not to make them believe what they don't want to.

However, sometimes during a conversation, I may say something, and they may ask a question, and I will answer. Eventually we learn each person's belief.

If we had a good conversation - which more often is the case, we might have more after that.
Even if we disagree, we may still talk, only it may not be on particular topics... depending.

Either way, no one should feel they have to do anything.
If one feels a religion is dangerous, then I say, stay away.
Even if they hold a gun to your head.

So what are you basically saying, that you don't talk to JWs?
We highly respect your decision.

Shalom