Well, if he says it in scriptures then YES, it must be true. It's God's Holy word.
We have to assume it is hearsay. How else can we account for the exact quotes of what Pontius Pilate allegedly said? One way is to say "God told Mark (or Luke, etc.)" or we can go by the objective evidence of historical writing habits of the time and conclude that they are made up by the author, as was the practice. The additional problem with the first possibility is that there is no explanation why the accounts given to the authors by God would differ as much as they differ among them.
God-breathed means the authors were not making anything up. Some accounts differ in focus, but they never present an impossibility problem. If you and I witness the same car accident and you say the hit and run car was a blue pick-up and I say it was a gray Mercedes, then we have an impossibility problem. If, however, you say it was a blue-pick-up and I say the license plate was "XYZ-123" then there is no conflict in our respective accounts of the same event.
All you have to do is compare the "exact" quotes among the four and you. This can only mean one thing, no less shocking, and that is that so much of what we take for granted even the "red letter" verses were made up by the authors as to what they believed was said. So, why would I believe Paul?
If you believe the former, then you have no reason to believe Paul. Or, anything else in the scriptures for that matter. That is a shame to say the least.
Again, you are missing the point: it's the message, the lesson that we read in the Gospels, in particular, and the Bible in general where it is Chirst-like, that is our guide, and not objective truth of the story.
I think I understand your point alright, and I disagree with it. If you throw out the truth of it, and rely only on what you perceive as "the message", THEN the message is whatever you want it to be. You demonstrate this by reducing all scripture to either being false or complying with your personal concept of what you think God should be like (in this case ONLY the verses in the Gospels that you like). If you accepted the historicity of scriptures you would not have the freedom to do that.
FK: Well, if he says it in scriptures then YES, it must be true. It's God's Holy word.
And who decided what is scripture? You? And if you believe it, that by itself doesn't mean it is true. It's your belief. But it seems to me that you believe that what you believe must be true. Yet, you have zero proof that it is. All you offer is what you believe.
God-breathed means the authors were not making anything up.
No it means they were inspired to write the way someone is inspired to write about a fire fighter saving a child from a burning building. The fire fighter doesn't write for the "inspired." The "inspired" write for the inspired, in their words and thoughts. There is no inerrancy or infallibility in inspiration.
If you and I witness the same car accident and you say the hit and run car was a blue pick-up and I say it was a gray Mercedes
Bad example, FK. First, if God wrote it for them, God would not write conflicting accounts, where details become fuzzy, unless God is trying to create confusion and discord. Second, this is not about the irrelevant details. This is about Paul claiming that Christ spoke through him. There are no eyewitness accounts. Just blind acceptance that "it must be true" because it's in the Bible—a book written by men, and the only truly objective fact about that book is that it is a book.
Kosta: [comparing different quotes] This can only mean one thing, no less shocking, and that is that so much of what we take for granted even the "red letter" verses were made up by the authors as to what they believed was said. So, why would I believe Paul?
FK: If you believe the former, then you have no reason to believe Paul. Or, anything else in the scriptures for that matter. That is a shame to say the least.
I believe in Paul's message, when it reflects the message of the Gospels. I believe in what the New Testament proclaims. I believe that if we all lived according to what that message is this would be a world free of fear and war and violence; I believe it would be a much better world for all.
I also believe, based on what I have seen in my life, that such goodness is nowhere to be found in "nature," human or not, that its origin then is not of this world.
I also believe that such goodness is eternally valid for all times and across all human divides, that is is a universal (catholic) truth and that those who profess such faith and hope preach true (orthodox) faith for humanity.
Kosta: Again, you are missing the point: it's the message, the lesson that we read in the Gospels, in particular, and the Bible in general where it is Chirst-like, that is our guide, and not objective truth of the story.
FK: I think I understand your point alright, and I disagree with it. If you throw out the truth of it, and rely only on what you perceive as "the message", THEN the message is whatever you want it to be.
Throwing out what truth? If the story is true but the message isn't, what good is that for us to follow? If the story is not true but the message is a lesson in truth, that is okay, it still proclaims truth that we can imitate for the betterment of the world.
We all rely on our "perception," FK. If you don't perceive the world through what you read and hear and know then show me some proof otherwise. Protestant Christians like to use "I was on my way to Damascus" card because it gives them that self-proclaimed "legitimacy" which only the naive and otherwise challenged can accept on word alone.
That's why Paul is so near and dear to Protestants and Baptists. They make the same unsubstantiated claims. But that doesn't mean Paul does not teach the Christian message of love and mercy.
You demonstrate this by reducing all scripture to either being false or complying with your personal concept of what you think God should be like (in this case ONLY the verses in the Gospels that you like). If you accepted the historicity of scriptures you would not have the freedom to do that.
What historicity of the Scripture? Biblical historicity is an oxymoron. Biblical archeology is a dead science. It is in fact a colossal failure. The Bible also fails when it comes to what we know about the world, the biology, botany, physics, etc.
We have already rehashed the "extraordinary proofs for extraordinary claims" failure of the Bible, because the entire historical and scientific "veracity" of the Bible is based on what you or anyone else personally believes. There is nothing objectively true about a book itself. It's veracity is purely subjective, base don perception of the one who reads it, and reflects one's a priori personal or "spiritual" disposition.
It is not I who thinks what God should be like, the Bible tells us that Jesus is the incarnate Logos. If that's how He appeared to the world then is it wrong to believe that that's how God wanted us to see Him or hear Him? Now, Christians believe in Christ as the image of God. Maybe others believe He is a burning bush. If so they are not Christians. But we already know that.
This is really not very difficult to understand FK. Christians follow Christ. People--->Christ--->Father. He is our Filter. What passes Him is true, what doesn't is false. Those who consider Christ only one of the "ingredients" in the big biblical soup are not Christians. To them Christ is one "flavor" added to other flavors. To us, Christ of the Gospels is the soup, the real food, and nourishment, and everything else is garnish.