Why do Christians trust the Bible?

[genkaus]

In all other religions, their various gods take the already 'holy/set apart/special' people and turn them into people to aspire to. The common/ignored/simple man (someone like me) gets rewarded not in this life but later on in the next. Again, the only people who can claim direct contact with their deity are considered prophets. (outside of Christanity)

This statement shows your profound ignorance of other religions.

[Minimalist]

Christianity is unique that way.

There is nothing unique about jesusism. It is derived from similar cults which flourished in the Roman Imperial period.

[Drich]

In all other religions, their various gods take the already 'holy/set apart/special' people and turn them into people to aspire to. The common/ignored/simple man (someone like me) gets rewarded not in this life but later on in the next. Again, the only people who can claim direct contact with their deity are considered prophets. (outside of Christanity)

This statement shows your profound ignorance of other religions.

Then sport, it's on you to proove me wrong. Document your claims like I do, don't just speak to what you 'think' is correct. If You can be bothered to acutally support some of the crap you say, will find out IF you honestly research these religions. (apart from what other people like you 'think') you will find what I said here to be completely accurate.

That doesn't mean that there arent those in other religions who claim contact with their deity without being a prophet, it means that their specific doctrines do not allow for such a relationship despite what they say.

[genkaus]

Then sport, it's on you to proove me wrong. Document your claims like I do, don't just speak to what you 'think' is correct. If You can be bothered to acutally support some of the crap you say, will find out IF you honestly research these religions. (apart from what other people like you 'think') you will find what I said here to be completely accurate.

That doesn't mean that there arent those in other religions who claim contact with their deity without being a prophet, it means that their specific doctrines do not allow for such a relationship despite what they say.

Your Jesus claims that the only way to god is through him - which means you must be lying about your direct contact with your god.

Hinduism on the other hand, doctrinally provides every human a way to connect to god through three yogas.

That proves you wrong.

[Blee]

Hi folks,

I’m going to try and give my perspective on the OP’s original question and try to give some insight from both a factual and a personal basis. I don’t have any formal training regarding these issues, but I like to indulge in debates and forums from time to time. I felt that some of the Christian responses I’ve read in this response don’t really address the question and only serve to strengthen the convictions of both sides (and widening the already wide enough rift) instead of make them question what both sides so strongly believe. (I think this is important in the pursuit of truth)

That being said, I have enough sense and humility to accept what Christopher Hitchens (originally Socrates) says that the only thing a person can know is that he/she knows nothing. As a result, I strongly suggest anyone that is looking for real answers to go to a legitimate source for answers. That goes for anyone and anything. You don’t go to a pharmacy to find out what the price of a whole chicken is, you go to the supermarket and find out. There are tonnes of research and publications that have already been done and that is already available should anyone just invest the time to look for it.

Why do Christians trust the Bible?
Here is my answer:

1) The Bible is not a single “Book” but a collection of books that were written over a large span of time, by multiple authors, with different literary style and all focused on a similar topic (GOD) and culminated with what is the New Testament. The result is, but not limited to, a historically accurate story with a beginning and an end. The word bibliography describes what the Bible is physically, “a complete or selective list of works compiled upon some common principle, as authorship, subject, place of publication, or printer.” [Thanks Google, dictionary.com]

o As a Christian, I believe that this list or collection of literature is what God has ‘picked’ to be what I need to know about God’s nature, my purpose, and history, and all issues of life. I’ll add here that my faith in God being good allows me to trust that God did not purposely leave out certain facts to keep me ‘dumb and naïve’ so to speak. I have what I need to know what I need to know. (You can potentially learn stuff about God from other things that are created, not SOLELY in what you read)

o The fact that the contents in the Bible span thousands of years suggests that some of the stories in the Bible may be during time periods that have been historically and archaeologically verified by outside sources. Some of the Biblical accounts that have archaeological findings supporting their historical relevance include the Hittities, Solomon’s wealth, Sargon, and King Belshazzar. This suggests that the Biblical accounts of these hold a measure of truth. I’ll go further and say the Biblical accounts are 100% true, since there is not enough evidence or information to conclude that only bits and pieces of the Biblical account are true. I hold this stance until evidence is presented that says otherwise. I admit, there are some big events that have NOT been verified (i.e., Noah’s Ark and the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah etc.). This doesn’t mean it’s untrue. It could be true that it didn’t happen, or it could be true that we just haven’t discovered anything to substantiate these Biblical stories. However, at this point I think I’ll defer to the archaeologists and other experts to come up with something more definitive, for or against. The fact that we still have Jews today, I take as a sign that the Bible (at least the Old Testament) is true. The fact that they still hold its teachings (in addition to the Talmud) and practices lead me to think that there is some truth to their history that is laid out in the Old Testament.

o Multiple Authors and Differing Literary style. Deuteronomy and Leviticus is filled with rules, guidelines, traditions and rituals to live a proper Jewish life… back in the day. Psalms is filled with poetry and “lyrics” (psalms are in fact, songs) supposedly written by King David. In them, you’ll find songs where he is angry at God, and songs where he praises God. The Psalms are emotional and alive. Judges, is a historical account of all the divinely inspired leaders of Israel. (Interestingly enough, if you read Judges, there is a VERY IMPORTANT LESSON about human nature and how we always fall short of God). Matthew, Mark, Luke and John writing their own accounts of Jesus. Four accounts of the same story written for different audiences. I think Christopher Hitchens, being a journalist himself, was once asked what the likelihood of 4 different journalists reporting on the same story and writing similar accounts of the story would be difficult, if not impossible. The fact that the four gospels are similar but different gives me a sense of purpose for each book. As a result, they don’t just tell a story, they teach a lesson (and a great one, too). The letters of Paul, Peter, John were written to varying early churches all over Asia Minor. All these differing authors write about the same story, same God, and same ideas. As a result, they have a LARGE applicability to, I dare say, every single aspect of life. For me, viewing the Bible as how it was originally written affirms my faith. It tells me that the Bible has more to teach me than just historical facts, but gives emotional examples of those who were considered the most faithful of their time. It doesn’t just teach me how to live as a good Christian, it teaches me the human condition and the true purpose of why we are actually here. I think these lessons are truly the point of contention between those who believe and those who don’t. They are not lovey-dovey soft lessons, some of the lessons are rough, hard to understand , take time to sink in and I think most importantly are relevant even today and life-changing.

o The Bible is filled with things that explain why certain things are the way they are. For example, Job suffered immensely as a result of God allowing the devil to oppress Job. I think the key point here is God ALLOWED… which means he has authority over the devil. The story is not about how God is so evil as to let his most loyal follower fall prey to the devil. I agree, if that were the case, that would make no sense to me whatsoever, contradicting everything else in the Bible that sheds light on God's character. However, there is evidence in the Bible that there is a backstory and some context to the Book of Job that also needs to be considered. The book overall gives us an example of how to cope with suffering, identifies certain pitfalls with regards to suffering and religious devotion, and how God fits in with the suffering that is so evident in our world even today. It’s these types of lessons that make the Bible relevant and true to me. I’d be happy to talk about suffering with respect to other religions as well, but I think that’s for another post. (Truthfully, I don’t know enough about how other religions view suffering as to make judgements about it, so I gotta do some research too. From what I've heard though, Christianity is the only one that gives hope to people who are suffering)

o Beginning and End. Also in the OT are prophecies from the major and minor prophets. These would include Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekial and the minor prophets. These are relevant because in my opinion, they are the glue that binds the Old and New testaments together. The argument from most Christians about the authenticity of Jesus' claims is that Jesus satisfied or fulfilled a number of the prophecies written by these prophets hundreds of years prior. I will admit that at this point, there are verses that are interpreted subjectively. Depending on your stubbornness and skepticism, it’ll take more than just a few fulfilled prophecies to PROVE that Jesus was in fact the prophesied. Fair enough, but I encourage anyone to go through them with open-mindedness and honesty and come to a conclusion themselves. At this point, I think most people would just say “you are using the Bible to prove the Bible”, which is illogical. Remember, the Bible is a COLLECTION of books. When Matthew wrote his account of the gospel he was not writing a section in the Bible, he was writing his account of the life of Jesus that BECAME part of the Holy Bible. Paul was writing a LETTER to the churches, if you read them, they are indeed formulated as letters. From my understanding, the Bible is made up of the OT, the beginning, and concludes with the NT, the end, which suggests that Jesus is coming back a 2nd and final time. Based on how the books span thousands of years, written by multiple authors with differing purposes, that create an all-encompassing story with a beginning and an end, I am lead to believe that the Bible is true.

2) Another reason why I believe the Bible to be true comes from historiography, which determines the reliability of an ancient document. One of the tests of reliability is the bibliographical test which looks at authenticity as a function of the following:

o The time gap between the earliest copy of a story and the date it was supposedly written (based on content and relation to historical events).

o The number of copies of a story (they call it a manuscript) that are available

o Essentially, the more copies of a story there are, the more authentic it is AND the closer the earliest copy of a story is to the actual date it is supposedly written, makes that copy more authentic.

o For example, if I write about the history of Jesus in 2014… it is less authentic than someone who wrote it in 90AD.

o To put things into perspective, the NT has over 25,000 manuscripts. The OT goes much further back into history. Prior to the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the earliest version was a 900AD copy. That is why the finding of the DSS was such a major archaeological find for Judaism, Christianity and Islam. It helped to CONFIRM the validity and consistency of the OT versions that we do have today. Anyway, lots of data available for this.

• I’m sure there are more reasons, but those two are the primary reasons why I believe in the Bible. It is always important to read the Bible in its context. When it shoots down the rights of women, we must remember that they were written during a time that was primarily male-dominant. That is a PART OF OUR HISTORY, not a teaching that is demanded of all Christians. It really brings life into the Bible when you read it and even critique it as the documents that they are, instead of just critiquing bits and pieces assuming the entirety is a guideline for proper Christian living similar to Judaism’s Talmud, Islam’s Quran and Hadith, and most Buddhist teachings. When I say the Bible is Holy, I believe that not only are they stories, accounts, lyrics, lessons and letters, but they also have a bit of God's essence embedded in it, making it relevant and alive even today.

I also want to address the comment in OP’s post about Satan. We are never told of what Satan (Yes he was an angel) did to deserve what he got. We are also not told that he actually wanted what he got. What if that was the case and he actually wanted to be apart from God? Then we should actually congratulate him and be happy for him... right? The fact is, we are not told. So why bother with the question? What scientific tool or logic can we use to figure out why? I propose that the most prudent way would be to simply ask Satan, or ask God. But that presupposes that you actually believe in God and Satan, and since this is an atheists forums, I assume nobody does. So again, why bother? (I propose that people just do it to rile up Christians in an attempt to get a troll worthy post). Let’s also remember that Christians believe God CREATED everything… even Satan. It is Satan who decided to reject God, and therefore fall from the state of angelic grace that I assume angels are all in. I think it was Thomas Aquinas that defined evil as a “Lack of Good”, instead of a complete and equal opposite to Good. In the same way, darkness is a lack of light; laziness is a lack of responsibility and so forth. Christians believe in a God that is beyond creation, beyond time, beyond space, which I can’t even begin to imagine. That God is personal and manifested in Christ and so forth. You should all know the shpiel by now. If not, then I’d be happy to share.

With regards to the OP’s comments about accountability and divine relevations, I will add this situation for thought. IF we assume that all of these ‘fantastic claims’ were only that, a fabrication/lie/fantasy/made-up story, then why would it have perpetuated into what is now one of the world’s largest religions? When Christianity was young, it was a persecuted sect. The Christian religion did not grow up in a region friendly to Christian ideals until Constantine came along 300 years after Christ died. There was no Christian ARMY before then, and yet the religion flourished. Why then, in that hostile environment, would anyone follow a teacher that was KNOWN to be false and based off lies? The punishment for being a Christian and asserting opposition to the Roman occupation was persecution and death. The punishment for being a Jew and following Christ was to be stoned to death. Paul WAS himself a devout Jew and guilty of murdering Christians, he confesses himself. He even had a reputation as a person to fear. Eventually, Paul and Peter and many following Christians were executed for their crimes of encouraging dissention in the empire (this is my own assumption, and isn’t based on anything except what I think is logical). Furthermore, if a room full of people claim to have seen a body risen from the dead (mass hallucination is rare with the exception of drugs. I'm not aware of any drugs available back at that time.), all the authorities needed to do was to produce the body that was buried at a known location by a known person. Easy fix, no? Either they failed to do so because the authorities actually wanted to deal with the Christian annoyance for another 300 years (and so Christians are not at fault because they were mislead by the Romans, and the past 2000 years have been a hilarious historical joke because it was all based on a false fact), or they actually could not find the body. Maybe some other reasons exist which I cannot think of right now. Please enlighten if you know.

Christianity is, at its core, a very offensive and touchy religion. That in itself is a more believable reason for why some people reject it than people referencing so-and-so expert and this-and-that document. It speaks to people’s hearts and souls, and that is why it is painful and hurtful at times. However, it is also fulfilling and purposeful as evidenced by the quality of life improvements that have happened over the course of history, and are happening all over the world.

Anyways, this is my first post ever and I hope I did a fair enough job of addressing the OP’s original post. Cheers,

[DramaQueen]

Hinduism = Ganja

[Neo-Scholastic]

...this is my first post ever and I hope I did a fair enough job of addressing the OP’s original post. Cheers,

Perhaps you could introduce yourself in the Introductions forum. And geez, what's up with the word wall?

[The Grand Nudger]

Then sport, it's on you to proove me wrong. Document your claims like I do, don't just speak to what you 'think' is correct. If You can be bothered to acutally support some of the crap you say, will find out IF you honestly research these religions. (apart from what other people like you 'think') you will find what I said here to be completely accurate.

That doesn't mean that there arent those in other religions who claim contact with their deity without being a prophet, it means that their specific doctrines do not allow for such a relationship despite what they say.

Garbage, you won't find many "prophets" in paganism, traditional or Neo- but what you will find is a shitload of personal relationships. People who were and are just as convinced as you that their deity is in contact with them because they've been led to expect so...by doctrine, tradition, or even magical incantation.....some even think they can draw the gods down into themselves and that this is something anyone can do - no "prophethood" required. You think it's someone else's responsibility to fucking educate you? Educate yourself...don't you take your "ministry" seriously? I think that you might need to verify these claims before you try to foist them upon others, unless you're fine with being a liar for christ.

[DramaQueen]

Drich is a minister?

[Crossless2.0]

Drich is a minister?

I don't think he's a real minister. He hasn't hit us up for money yet.