Alex18 san, thank you for your comments.
I would firstly like to let you know the investigation process that I am using. It is a 'bottom up' process. This process starts at the beginning and works upward to get a whole understanding, or picture. This process is the more chronologically correct process, in that time (as far as we can percieve) is a uni-directional process--that is, it goes in one direction only. This, then, means that as far as any concern of human activity goes, we will find a starting point for that activity.
Regarding any writings produced by humans--and please don't try to argue against this point here, it's too early--there is a point in time when that writing would have, without mistake, been written. This fact holds true for any writing, be it of a religious nature or not.
Therefore, to evaluate the condition and quality of the communication, the purpose, the source and audience of any writing, it is far more accurate to start from the circumstances at the time of the writing--to the best of our abilities. This is the essence of the 'bottom to top' mode of investigation. It is tied in closely with the 'Historical Method.'
The results of the initial investigation will lead us to the more correct
(1) first step conclusion that, for example, in the early second century CE, there were a good number of written works used by the several groups of Christians spread throughout the Roman Empire and beyond. All these works were held in equal esteem by the churches. At that point, they were all equally held to be sacred.
At this point, therefore, we cannot yet determine whether a document had anything behind it other than the human mind. We would have to study, compare, and co-relate further to be able to reach any type of secure conclusion on that understanding.
The starting point would have to be way back in the 3rd century BCE, however.
For this reason, Alex18 san, it is premature, in our research so far, to make any conclusive claims--we are forced to hold judgment until further information can come in. If we start from where we are now, with any understanding that we have now, we are forcing subjective, predetermined worldviews on a situation or act that we have no valid knowledge of. This method of argumentation is of the type that would not hold up in court.
THEREFORE, we cannot claim that it is known to have been historically true that supernatural superintendence had been responsible, in whatever degree and or way, for
any of the writings that had been in circulation among Christians in the early second century--much less first century CE--until we have thoroughly investigated all circumstances, states, formats, and content of each and every writing to the fullest of our abilities.
Believing in a god-model at the present moment will have no bearing on the investigation. The reason for that is that we are investigating the source information which prescribes that god-model. Whatever our presently adhered to religious-belief system may be, or may teach, should be put on hold for the purpose of this investigation. To not make an effort, at least, to do so, would cause a faulty and bias investigation.
That would be nice to continue this coversation.. have a nice day everybody..
Yes. . . let's keep this discussion going. Let's go about it by guidelines. Let's take it slow and easy, fully covering one point at a time. And now, that is still the definition for the word 'Bible.' I take you have agreed, Alex18 to that working definition. MM
(1) It is important to take note of degrees of qualification, for example, going up: by far the least likely, less likely, somewhat likely, likely, more likely, most likely, by far the most likely. To say that a matter is more likely does not deny other possibilites, but simply shows that the evidence leans more so in favor of this conclusion.
source material in general: Journal of Biblical Literature issues; Society of Biblical Literature publications--several issues; scholarship at large--John P. Meir (Notre Dame University), Martin Hengel (retired), Bart D. Ehrman, William O. Walker, Bruce M. Metzger, Graham Stanton, Eldon J. Epp (retired, but former president of SBL), Robert W. Funk, William Peterson, Joanna Dewey, and so on. . .
..
