God-Inspired Scripture

[Ingledsva]

I agree, there are many passages in the New Testament that 'parrot' what the Tanach says. This is because there is compatibility between the two Testaments.

I chose the word - parrot - for a reason. We are not talking compatibility, - but in most of the verses given - merely parroting Tanakh.

Apart from direct quotations, there are many types and illustrations of the coming Messiah - as in Noah, Isaac, Joseph, David, Joshua, Melchisedek, Elijah etc etc.

Well obviously special people in Tanakh are going to be put forward as having attributes of the coming JEWISH Messiah. That has nothing to do with Jesus. He claimed to be the Jewish Messiah, even did some of the things he thought that Messiah was supposed to do, - which of course he knew, being Jewish. But he didn't fulfill the actual prophecies.

As I suggested earlier, the deeper you go the more astonishing the testimony to Christ.

I have read and studied the Bible many times. Jesus comes across as a great teacher, - most of the time. There is that little odd problem about him having possible guerrillas on his team, whom have machaira (Short swords for hand to hand fighting.)

Let's look at the passages from Isaiah and see what they say. It's time we looked at some specific examples and evidence! Which passages do you want to look at?

Choose whichever you would like to discuss.

*

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It's so fun to see such pretentious 'expertise' stumble out of the gate. So tell us, blue, why the pompous appeals to Sinaiticus rather than, say, Vaticanus?

Sinaiticus is older.

A couple of brief points (which really should not have to be made) ...

First, from Wikipedia ...

All of the great uncials were written on fine vellum, with the leaves arranged in quarto form. The size of the leaves is much bigger than in papyri codices:
Sinaiticus – 38 x 34 cm (15 x 13.4 inches; written ca. 330–360)
Vaticanus – 27 x 27 cm (10.6 x 10.6 in; ca. 325–350)
Alexandrinus – 32 x 26 cm (10.2 x 12.6 in; ca. 400–440)
Ephraemi – 33 x 27 cm (13 x 10.6 in; ca. 450)

Codex Vaticanus uses the most ancient system of text's division in the Gospels. Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Ephraemi have theAmmonian Sections with references to the Eusebian Canons.​

FWIW, ca 325-350 is older than ca 330-360.

Second, oldest extant does not mean most accurate.

 

[blue taylor]

The Codex Sinaiticus is history. It's contents may be just stories written by Hellenistic converts to Judaism, but it is old and part of history. It is translated online. It is the most corrected and changed of any of the oldest NT texts we have. It is also the oldest.

The earliest NT was the Bible of Marcion. About 144. Considered a heretic by the orthodox church, nonetheless his was the first NT. One gospel, ten epistles of Paul. No OT. No OT God.

Restate: Since the God of the Jews and Christians has human attributes and flaws could their God have made mistakes?

 

[Ingledsva]

...
I am saying that both deductive (objective) and inductive (subjective) reasoning can be applied to the Bible. God is the universal spirit. He can make himself known. Like a deductive argument God can descend to earth and make himself known to human beings. He can also dwell within a man, giving a man a knowledge that is not subjective. This is described in the Bible as the indwelling Holy Spirit, or Comforter. This spirit can reside in 1000 people at one time. This means it is no longer a purely subjective experience. It's a shared experience, and one that allows the Church to call itself the Body of Christ on earth.
....

You have no proof of any of this which just makes it baloney to the rest of us.

All you have is a book - written by humans - that makes claims.

*

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So, @blue taylor is very excited by the argument ...

"Codex Sinaiticus contains the Epistle of Barnabas and The Shepherd Of Hermas. Why would God put them in and take them out later? Did God make a mistake?

You can tell that he was excited because (a) he wrote it in red, and (b) he didn't give it much thought. So, for example, what if it turns out that Vaticanus is indeed older than Sinaiticus or, at least, more accurately reflects some Vorlage? And what if, for example, the Epistle of Barnabas is missing? Should we then ask (in red type of course) ...

Why would God leave it out and put them in later? Did God make a mistake?​

It seems that poor @blue taylor tried to patch together an argument which turned out to be - let us say - threadbare.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The Codex Sinaiticus is history.

WOW!

The earliest NT was the Bible of Marcion.

To call the Bible [sic] of Marcion the earliest NT is just butchering the language.

 

[blue taylor]

A couple of brief points (which really should not have to be made) ...

First, from Wikipedia ...

All of the great uncials were written on fine vellum, with the leaves arranged in quarto form. The size of the leaves is much bigger than in papyri codices:
Sinaiticus – 38 x 34 cm (15 x 13.4 inches; written ca. 330–360)
Vaticanus – 27 x 27 cm (10.6 x 10.6 in; ca. 325–350)
Alexandrinus – 32 x 26 cm (10.2 x 12.6 in; ca. 400–440)
Ephraemi – 33 x 27 cm (13 x 10.6 in; ca. 450)

Codex Vaticanus uses the most ancient system of text's division in the Gospels. Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Ephraemi have theAmmonian Sections with references to the Eusebian Canons.​

FWIW, ca 325-350 is older than ca 330-360.

Second, oldest extant does not mean most accurate.

Both are dated to the middle of the 4th century. Neither could be dated before 331. Sinaiticus is a complete NT. Vaticanus is not. Also the Sinaiticus has scribal notes off to the left that state what the scribes changed from the one they were copying it from. This gives us more insight as to it's developmental process. Since Eusebius was commissioned to produce the first collection of books (canon) by Constantine, in 331, the text with the closest ties to Eusebius should be the first.

 

[blue taylor]

WOW!

To call the Bible [sic] of Marcion the earliest NT is just butchering the language.

And yes Marcion had the first canon of the NT. Whether you like it or not. His church rivaled the orthodox church in size and scope. For years there were 2 bishops of Rome. One orthodox and one marcionic.

 

[Sapiens]

It's so fun to see such pretentious 'expertise' stumble out of the gate. So tell us, blue, why the pompous appeals to Sinaiticus rather than, say, Vaticanus?

Bet he's a barbarian too (e.g, no speakie da Greek).

 

[Unveiled Artist]

From a purely rational position I have to agree with you. As an individual seeking God through natural reason I can only know things subjectively. This is the position of a relativist. There are truths, but no Truth.

From the position of faith, I have to disagree. This is not now me alone. As the scripture say, 'There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.'

It's a bit like asking whether there is anything that is common to all humanity. And I guess I would have to say, Yes, the need for love. Can love be purely subjective?

I think I am a relativist, if you were referring to me. Love is subjective. For example, the love I get from my father would mean something different if he tried to give the same love to you (as he would me). The relationship between him and I and him and you are different. That doesn't mean it is not love. It just means the definition of is based on the relationship it has with the people involved. That is why it is subjective.

So, the experiences and relations we have with our god/s, spirits, and so forth mean different things to different people: that is subjectivity.

In my opinion, your faith is subjective and it is hard to see pass your religious bias. (Bias a good word). We all have bias or ways we interpret the world that influence how we see things. I live life without needing to believe in a Creator. I cant figure the logistics in having a Creator. It seems very isolated to me. That is my bias. Yours is the opposite. Its very hard, if near impossible, to see life without a Creator. You cant figure the logistics in how people do so.

and they do.

Always use the word "and". You respect and hopefully understand other peoples point of view while keeping your own. That is, if you are a relativist (and, um, liberal)

 

[arthra]

In a nutshell, the reasons I cannot accept the Qur'an as prophecy are:
Muhammad was not an Israelite. It's clear from the Bible that God had a 'chosen' people who became guardians of his Word. The literary prophets were all Israelites. This makes the claims of Muhammad either fraudulant or erroneous.
There are clear inconsistencies between the Bible and Qur'an. So great are these inconsistencies that the claim made by Muslims that the Bible has been corrupted cannot be upheld. I'm thinking specifically of the denial of the crucifixion of Jesus, and the claim that Abraham accompanied Ishmael and not Isaac to the place of sacrifice.

Well "redemption song" thanks for your post... I don't see that we agree regarding Prophet Muhammad and the Qur'an. Muhammad as you may already know claimed descent from Abraham through Ishmael thus the covenant of Abraham with God continued through His children. There were even in the Bible non-Israelite prophets. Abraham was a progenitor of Israelites and Ishmaelites. The racial identity of Prophet Job is not apparent... and Cyrus a Persian was the Lord's Anointed.

You raise the claim of Muslims that the "Bible" was corrupted, it's also I believe possible "corruption" can mean misinterpretation...which well could be the case.

What is in the Qur'an on the subject?:

"Do you, the believers in truth, desire the unbelievers to believe you? There was a group among them who would hear the word of God and understand it. Then they would purposely misinterpret it."

(Muhammad Sarwar translation)

Chapter (2) sūrat l-baqarah (The Cow)

(2:75:13)
yuḥarrifūnahu
they distort it




Consider your mention of the Qur'anic verse about the crucifixion:

Let's look again at Surih 4 verse 157

Translation of A.Yusuf Ali

That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-

There is also a verse in the Qur'an regarding martyrs Surih 2:154

And say not of those who are slain in the way of Allah: "They are dead." Nay, they are living, though ye perceive (it) not.

The verse focuses on the reality of the spirit of the martyr who was slain! The spirit is living.

The same can be said in my view to the Surih 4:157.... while the corporeal body was crucified the Spirit of Jesus was not killed...but in verse 158:

Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise;-

There is also very lovely way this is confirmed by the Gospel of Luke..

The last words of Jesus on the cross according to the Gospel of Luke translated in the Jerusalem Bible read:

....and when Jesus had cried out in a loud voice, He said, "Father, into Your hands I commit my Spirit" with these words he breathed His last.

~ Luke 22:46

Regarding the verse in the Bible about the sacrifice we read in Genesis22:1

After these things God tested Abraham and said to him, “Abraham!” And he said, “Here I am.” 2 He said, “Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go the land of Moriah,..."

Abraham had an "only son" for over ten years and his name was Ishmael..after Isaac was born He had two sons.

 

[blue taylor]

Bet he's a barbarian too (e.g, no speakie da Greek).

But I speak facts.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Both are dated to the middle of the 4th century. Neither could be dated before 331.

Wait a minute, blue. We started with ....

It's so fun to see such pretentious 'expertise' stumble out of the gate. So tell us, blue, why the pompous appeals to Sinaiticus rather than, say, Vaticanus?

Sinaiticus is older.

... you claiming that a) "Sinaiticus is older" and, therefore b) it deserves special place. Now you say: well, shucks, neither could be dated before 331.

Of course, we are suppose to rely on your already questionable expertise for this. Furthermore, given that Wikapedia:Vaticanus states:

The manuscript is dated to the first half of the 4th century and is likely slightly older than Codex Sinaiticus, which was also transcribed in the 4th century. One argument to support this, is that Sinaiticus already has the, at that time, very new Eusebian Canon tables, but Vaticanus does not. Another is the slightly more archaic style of Vaticanus, and the complete absence of ornamentation.
​

Just in case there might be some problem with reading comprehension, note that Wiki's "The manuscript is dated to the first half of the 4th century and is likely slightly older than Codex Sinaiticus," means just the opposite of your preemptory "Sinaiticus is older."

So, blue, so we believe you or the Wikipedia reference and, if you, why?

 

[Sapiens]

But I speak facts.

If you make pronouncments about things that were written in Greek and you don't read Greek ... well ... you're at a bit of disadvantage and the Greeks would have called you "barbarian."

If you claim to speak facts, in the absence of evidence, then you are just engaged in the overture to a very boring game of περιστέρι σκάκι.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

But I speak facts.

As in "Sinaiticus is older"?

 

[blue taylor]

If you make pronouncments about things that were written in Greek and you don't read Greek ... well ... you're at a bit of disadvantage and the Greeks would have called you "barbarian."

If you claim to speak facts, in the absence of evidence, then you are just engaged in the overture to a very boring game of περιστέρι σκάκι.

What facts do I speak in absence of evidence?

 

[blue taylor]

As in "Sinaiticus is older"?

Matter of opinion. Wiki is not perfect. If we knew the exact ages of both, and V was older I would agree.

 

[Sapiens]

What facts do I speak in absence of evidence?

As in "Sinaiticus is older"?

'nuf said?

How about "I speak facts"? As long as we're on a search for unsupported bumph.

Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth. - Marcus Aurelius

 

[blue taylor]

No text is God inspired. There are thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of texts about some kind of god or another. Most every religion has "god-inspired" texts. Most are very different from each other. Most contradict each other. Inspiration comes from the mind of those claiming to be inspired. Not a god.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Matter of opinion. Wiki is not perfect. If we knew the exact ages of both, and V was older I would agree.

Ahh ... so from here we can see:

• when you boasted "I speak facts" you actually meant "I push my uninformed opinion,"
• you agree that we do not know the exact dates yet nevertheless made the unfounded claim, and
• you claim that you should be seen as more credible than Wiki because "Wiki is not perfect."

That's funny.