Half of the New Testament a forgery?

[Twig pentagram]

I dont think there is anything divine at all about putting a seed in the ground with some water now and then.

nature is not divine

I disagree.

 

[sojourner]

nature is not divine

Divine isn't divine, either. But Godsmack is...

 

[horizon_mj1]

I dont think there is anything divine at all about putting a seed in the ground with some water now and then.

nature is not divine

Oh really now!? So you know who can control tornadoes, hurricanes, rain, snow, clouds, earthquakes, volcanoes? Rather you like it or not, Nature is Divine; it has complete control over the planet, not so much can be said for humanity. We may know what may cause some natural disasters, but there is no way we can control them, we can only try feebly to manipulate nature in hopes of saving lives. One of the definitions of divine: v] perceive intuitively or through some inexplicable perceptive powers; I do not know how you can say that nature is not divine, but maybe you know more than the rest of humanity eh?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I have never believed that all the books were written by who they said they were.
When the contents of the Bible were selected one of the conditions was that they had to be written by an apostle.
much of the writing was attributed to them, not because it was certain, but because it seemed reasonable at the time. They are certainly not forgeries, as who ever wrote them had no intention to deceive.

 

[Greyn]

I dont think there is anything divine at all about putting a seed in the ground with some water now and then.

nature is not divine

I wish that was all there is to it! My garden (or lack of) can attest there is more then just planting a seed and watering it that makes it grow to fruit. My point is the effort may be man, but the process is divine. I know that you need to take a leap of faith to believe that, but I do believe it by what I have observed. You have to make that decision on your own. It is the same with the authenticity of the Bible. Eventually, you have to ask yourself if you believe the process of writing the Bible was divine and is that enough to make it the truth.

 

[fallingblood]

Oh really now!? So you know who can control tornadoes, hurricanes, rain, snow, clouds, earthquakes, volcanoes? Rather you like it or not, Nature is Divine; it has complete control over the planet, not so much can be said for humanity. We may know what may cause some natural disasters, but there is no way we can control them, we can only try feebly to manipulate nature in hopes of saving lives. One of the definitions of divine: v] perceive intuitively or through some inexplicable perceptive powers; I do not know how you can say that nature is not divine, but maybe you know more than the rest of humanity eh?

We may not be able to control such things, but we know how they work. There is nothing divine about it unless you want to have faith that there is something divine about it.

We aren't talking about something inexplicable. The events you described can and have been explained by science. We know how they happen. We know why they happen. For the most part, we can even predict when they will happen based on our knowledge of how they work. Nothing divine.

 

[fallingblood]

I wish that was all there is to it! My garden (or lack of) can attest there is more then just planting a seed and watering it that makes it grow to fruit. My point is the effort may be man, but the process is divine. I know that you need to take a leap of faith to believe that, but I do believe it by what I have observed. You have to make that decision on your own. It is the same with the authenticity of the Bible. Eventually, you have to ask yourself if you believe the process of writing the Bible was divine and is that enough to make it the truth.

The authenticity of the Bible isn't divine. It may be inspired, but it is not divine in itself. It is beyond a doubt that the Bible contains forgeries. There really is no question.

 

[waitasec]

Oh really now!? So you know who can control tornadoes, hurricanes, rain, snow, clouds, earthquakes, volcanoes? Rather you like it or not, Nature is Divine; it has complete control over the planet, not so much can be said for humanity.

but it isn't a deity... if you define a deity as an intelligent sentient being.
we understand how these things occur, and we also know that nature is indifferent...if that is what you define as divine

We may know what may cause some natural disasters, but there is no way we can control them, we can only try feebly to manipulate nature in hopes of saving lives. One of the definitions of divine: v] perceive intuitively or through some inexplicable perceptive powers; I do not know how you can say that nature is not divine, but maybe you know more than the rest of humanity eh?

since we have the ability to control other things, like cures to certain illnesses, we are divine too, by that criteria.

 

[Greyn]

The authenticity of the Bible isn't divine. It may be inspired, but it is not divine in itself. It is beyond a doubt that the Bible contains forgeries. There really is no question.

I can't argue this opinion. Inspired and divine are the same thing by definition. Although there is continued discussion and revision (interestingly, this discussion comes mostly from inside the Church), it doesn't mean the Bible is not authentic, relevant or inspired/divine. In my opinion, it just means that we are growing and learning. God gives us what we need and opens more of the world as we go. It is up to you to decide whether or not you believe in a higher guidance or it is simply humans acting alone.

 

[waitasec]

My point is the effort may be man, but the process is divine.

but then anything inspired is divine, like pat mathany for instance...

I know that you need to take a leap of faith to believe that, but I do believe it by what I have observed. You have to make that decision on your own. It is the same with the authenticity of the Bible.

but it leaves a lot of space for subjective inspiration...not everyone likes pat mathany..a subjective interpretation.

Eventually, you have to ask yourself if you believe the process of writing the Bible was divine and is that enough to make it the truth.

an entirely subjective opinion.

 

[Greyn]

but then anything inspired is divine, like pat mathany for instance...


but it leaves a lot of space for subjective inspiration...not everyone likes pat mathany..a subjective interpretation.




an entirely subjective opinion.

Sure, Pat Metheny could be inspired by God. I do not know God's plan or intentions, so I go with everything and everyone has value as a part of God's inspired plan. That includes things I do not like or agree with, although it may be difficult at times. Of course it is an opinion, that is what faith is; an opinion on the spirituality of reality.

 

[fallingblood]

I can't argue this opinion. Inspired and divine are the same thing by definition. Although there is continued discussion and revision (interestingly, this discussion comes mostly from inside the Church), it doesn't mean the Bible is not authentic, relevant or inspired/divine. In my opinion, it just means that we are growing and learning. God gives us what we need and opens more of the world as we go. It is up to you to decide whether or not you believe in a higher guidance or it is simply humans acting alone.

You need a better dictionary then. Inspired and divine are not the same by definition. They are not synonyms.

 

[Greyn]

You need a better dictionary then. Inspired and divine are not the same by definition. They are not synonyms.

Here is the dictionary I am using:

in·spire

verb \in-ˈspī(-&#601r\
transitive verb
1
a : to influence, move, or guide by divine or supernatural inspiration

Inspire - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


So, yeah....

 

[fallingblood]

Here is the dictionary I am using:

in·spire

verb \in-ˈspī(-&#601r\
transitive verb
1
a : to influence, move, or guide by divine or supernatural inspiration

Inspire - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


So, yeah....

So no. Read that again. It does not say that something that is inspired is divine. It says that it is influenced, moved, or guided by the divine or supernatural. Being guided by the divine does not make something divine. Just like being guided by a doctor doesn't make one a doctor.

 

[Greyn]

So no. Read that again. It does not say that something that is inspired is divine. It says that it is influenced, moved, or guided by the divine or supernatural. Being guided by the divine does not make something divine. Just like being guided by a doctor doesn't make one a doctor.

But it does make someone act in a medical capacity.



The guidance, and through that guidance, the actions of the people writing it is divine. If you want to say that the guidance is divine, but the results are not...well, then I think there will be no way to constructively debate the topic.

 

[fallingblood]

But it does make someone act in a medical capacity.



The guidance, and through that guidance, the actions of the people writing it is divine. If you want to say that the guidance is divine, but the results are not...well, then I think there will be no way to constructively debate the topic.

It simply doesn't work like that.

I can take the guidance of a doctor. That doesn't make me a doctor. I can take the guidance of a god, that doesn't make me a god (unless you think there are millions of gods running around). I personally take the guidance of various university professors, but I'm not a university professor. I even take the guidance of women, but I'm certainly not a woman.

Taking the guidance, or being guided by something, does not transform that something into what is guiding it. Just because a book is inspired by the divine, it does not make it divine. They are two very different things.

 

[Muffled]

Half of New Testament forged, Bible scholar says – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

Discuss..

This was all settled when the canon was determined. The Holy Spirit guided holy men into an understanding of which books are legitimate and which ones were not. It appears to me that the author did not take the approach of seeking the guidance of the holy spirit but tried to reason it through as though reason is superior to God's knowledge. Not olnly that but the reasoning appears to be subjective. To me Ephesians does appear to be in the style of writing that I see in Paul's other letters.
A long winded sentence does not surprise me at all because Paul has a habit of being long winded throughout his writinigs even if it doesn't show up in long sentences.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I have never believed that all the books were written by who they said they were.
When the contents of the Bible were selected one of the conditions was that they had to be written by an apostle.
much of the writing was attributed to them, not because it was certain, but because it seemed reasonable at the time. They are certainly not forgeries, as who ever wrote them had no intention to deceive.

Lets examine this logic for a moment. The first four books in the new testament tell the same story. Why the need to tell it four times?

Secondly, the only people who referred to Paul as an apostle was himself and Luke. Neither ever met Jesus before his death.

Lastly, many people did follow Jesus while he was alive and wrote things that where never included in the cannon.

 

[fallingblood]

This was all settled when the canon was determined. The Holy Spirit guided holy men into an understanding of which books are legitimate and which ones were not. It appears to me that the author did not take the approach of seeking the guidance of the holy spirit but tried to reason it through as though reason is superior to God's knowledge. Not olnly that but the reasoning appears to be subjective. To me Ephesians does appear to be in the style of writing that I see in Paul's other letters.
A long winded sentence does not surprise me at all because Paul has a habit of being long winded throughout his writinigs even if it doesn't show up in long sentences.

When was the canon decided upon? As far as I know, it was debated for over a thousand years.

 

[fallingblood]

I have never believed that all the books were written by who they said they were.
When the contents of the Bible were selected one of the conditions was that they had to be written by an apostle.
much of the writing was attributed to them, not because it was certain, but because it seemed reasonable at the time. They are certainly not forgeries, as who ever wrote them had no intention to deceive.

So, when someone who wasn't Paul, but said he was, he wasn't trying to deceive anyone? If that is true, why write in the name of Paul in the first place? Of course they wanted to deceive people. They wanted others to believe they were Paul when they were not, or James or Peter when they were not. That is deception.

And when were the contents of the Bible selected? It took over a thousand years of debate for that to happen. As for being written by an apostle, there are many books in the NT that aren't. Even two of the Gospels are never claimed to have been written by Apostles.