[Gathnet] To anyone who has an answer

[Jonathan Gathman]

   One has to demonstrate that Scriptures are divine rather than human 
in origin first.  I had written up a larger answer, starting with 
Manuscript, Archeology, Prophecy and Statistics but Stuart pointed out 
on a phone that you know about all that, so I dropped that.

   When one talks about an individual's contributions, especially in 
terms of Moses, Peter, Paul, etc, one needs to check several things. 
Were they Eye-witnesses? Being an eye-witness was a mark of being an 
Apostle.  All the disciples were eye-witnesses to the events and the 
person of Jesus.  Paul was at the very least an eye-witness to the 
events, and discusses this issue himself, calling himself "one as is 
born out of due season".  It is clear that there were a lot of 
interactions between the Apostles and Paul, and even disagreements, Paul 
stating that he criticized Peter publicly for accepting gentiles 
(according to God's teaching vision of "the sheet") when in the presence 
of gentiles, but shunning them in the presence of Jews.  The Apostles 
had plenty of opportunity to disclaim what Paul was preaching, but 
clearly did not, but rather sent him out.

   None of the New Testament books conflict with what is taught in the 
Old Testament, rather it shows the continuing plan of God, who didn't 
just drop His Salvation plan unprepared.  One can clearly see that 
first, God establishes that man is sinful, and cannot be saved.  Tons of 
evidence and observable behavior here.  All the Old Testament rules and 
ceremonies function to show both that God expects holiness and 
godliness, but that man cannot accomplish this.  (Romans 8). He then, 
early in the Old Testament establishes that He will send a Messiah, and 
also that a payment of blood is required for the remission of sins.  So 
that by the time Jesus arrives, there are numerous prophecies that Jesus 
fulfills.

   Finally, one can easily see that Jesus, in forming the disciples into 
a group, and sending them out is clearly expecting them to represent Him 
when He leaves.  He gave them the authority, as well as helping them 
through difficult times.

   There is one more point I'd like to make about Biblical witnesses. 
Contrary to any document that I can think of, Biblical witnesses declare 
the shortcomings of the characters presented.  Typical figures of the 
ancient and modern worlds always exaggerate their accomplishments and 
remove, if possible, their faults.  The only way you find the faults in 
some people is to ask their enemies.

   However, consider the Bible. Name any biblical figure (other than 
God), and the more important the accomplishments, the more the bible 
also states where they sinned.  David, the greatest king, has his 
adulterous conduct, and it's consequences recorded for eternity.  Moses 
disobeys God in speaking to the Rock, and is denied access to the 
promised land. Peter, the head of the church after Jesus ascends not 
only denied Christ before the crucifixion, but couldn't quite follow 
God's instructions regarding gentile believers.  Paul doesn't gloss over 
his antagonism for christians, but calls himself the chief of sinners, 
choosing, instead, to glory in the forgiveness and grace accorded to him 
by God.  Even Jesus, though He never sinned, showed anxiety and extreme 
distress in the Garden before the events of Passion week unfolded.  This 
candor lends great credibility and confidence that Biblical writers are 
indeed telling the truth.


SKM wrote:
> Elissa Gathman wrote:
> 
>> I was recently in a conversation with my grandmother who is an 
>> atheist. A question arose that I could not answer. We were talking 
>> about the book of Romans, and I  was explaining how God spoke/speaks 
>> through Paul to us. But then she asked how I know that it really is 
>> God speaking to us. How do we know that it's not Paul alone? Sure we 
>> can back up stories written in the bible through architectural 
>> findings. But the bible isn't all stories, how do we back up the parts 
>> of the bible that speak simply of gods love, and his commandments to us?
>>    Lissa
> 
> 
> Dear Elissa,
>    This is a very commonly raised objection: you have been asked to 
> prove that this is God's word. There are many, many ways to approach 
> this. Your father and aunt Beth could probably answer better than most. 
> Another good philosophical source is C. S. Lewis' _Mere Christianity_.
> 
>    But here goes one try. Be aware that no approach is completely, 
> proof-positive certain.
> 1. Faith: faith is believing something /without /proof. Many born-again 
> Christians will tell you that they know God in their heart, and that his 
> life in them is proof for their faith.
> 2. Evidence: Although you, Elissa, and I were not with Paul when he 
> wrote these words, there were indeed lots of witnesses who were there. 
> Many of them had seen Jesus and his miracles: they had, in effect, seen 
> and heard God. These witnesses could have said "What Paul says is not 
> from God - it is bunk." but they did not. Paul's writings are very 
> widely copied in ancient manuscripts, and were taken by these very 
> witnesses of Jesus for what Paul claimed them to be.
> 3. Consistency: the teaching of Paul in Romans is consistent with the 
> old Testament and with the life and teachings of Jesus as recorded in 
> the Gospels.
> 4. Experience: The teachings have born the test of time. Have you 
> noticed that those who follow the Bible's commands (including Paul's) 
> are different from the "crowd"? They are kind, humble, helpful, loving, 
> and in every way admirable.
> 
>    Let's turn this around: How does ANYONE "know" whether any ancient 
> manuscript is true? The Bible has a cloud of witnesses. Not proof, but 
> pretty good.
> 
> Sincerely,
> Uncle Scott
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gathnet mailing list
> Gathnet at gathman.org
> http://bmsi.com/mailman/listinfo/gathnet
> 

-- 
Jonathan Gathman
"Think, Speak and Do Well"
Urquhart Family Crest