The Bible Says So

[Angrboda]

Where in the bible does it say this?

it is an observation The bible does not speak of itself as it was not compiled while written. the bible does however speak of the scripture as a whole being given by God.
14 But you should continue following the teaching you learned. You know it is true, because you know you can trust those who taught you. 15 You have known the Holy Scriptures since you were a child. These Scriptures are able to make you wise. And that wisdom leads to salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is given by God. And all Scripture is useful for teaching and for showing people what is wrong in their lives. It is useful for correcting faults and teaching the right way to live. 17 Using the Scriptures, those who serve God will be prepared and will have everything they need to do every good work.

Well, then that becomes a supposition you have which may or may not be correct. Before I go any further, I want clarification on a few things. First, since this is Paul, I believe, who is speaking, then by teachings and scripture he would be referring to the rabbinical tradition and the old testament, would he not? And he says that the wisdom in those things will lead you to salvation through faith in Christ. I'm not sure the scriptures and traditions he's referring to can do any such thing. Can you clarify? Another problem is the idea that anything, faith in Jesus, notwithstanding, can lead you to salvation. From what I understand, salvation is a free gift from God, and is not earned, by faith in Christ or anything else. Is this not true? I also note that this passage precedes the gospels, including the Ask/Seek/Knock passage in Luke, which you have claimed is a similar map to God. Do you have anything referring to the gospels themselves in this vein? I may have further questions, but it doesn't appear that this indicates that the bible is a map so much as it is simply truth that can make you wise, and that wisdom can lead you to faith in Christ, which may or may not result in salvation. A map is a representation of the territory, so at minimum, that analogy doesn't hold given what I have so far. Especially is it is referrring to 'scripture' here, meaning the old testament, as that truth leads to a very different God than Jesus. Do you have any examples of Paul referring to his own writings as scripture, so we might at least ponder a self-referential statement? Given that these were letters he was writing, unless there is some explicit reference from him that his letters are scripture, that would seem to leave us with the old testament.

Asserted, but not proven.  I've listened to your arguments a long time, Drich, and they all fail by the same objection that Hume used in his argument against miracles.  For any thing you can cite as evidence of God, there is a more probable natural explanation.  That makes believing in God on account of your evidence irrational.  A smart apologist would attack Hume, but I doubt you're that smart.

it is proven on an individual level. If the bible did not deliver ever it the religion would fall by the way side as every other unproductive religion on earth has. Which is why I say every viable religion is supported by something. It keeps it's promises. Every current religion does. the only question is can man manifest those answered promises or is it a god level thing.

Having a no intermediary relationship with God is God level only that is the center of this religion. if this promise was not full filled every single generation for the last 2000 years Christianity would be a mention like gnosticism.

Unfortunately, the evidence does not support your assertion. It's known that movements prosper for many reasons, not necessarily because they contain truth. You haven't shown that the bible actually delivers, as you haven't addressed the Humean objection. You have to do that before you make any arguments as to its fulfillment of promises validating it. Confirmation bias, perseverance of belief, and other psychological mechanism put the whole of your hypothesis in doubt. People do convince them of things that they shouldn't be convinced of, and people do follow movements after having convinced themselves of such things, even for thousands of years. So this amounts to several errors. First, a failure to overcome the Humean objection. Second, an ignorance and misguided view of human nature. And third, an unsupported hypothesis that unsupported religions fail. Something which experience teaches us is actually the contrary. I find it interesting that you assert that every viable and current religion has something undergirding it which is genuine. Ignoring for the moment that this is basically begging the question, this statement is one of those, "heads I win, tails you lose," type propositions. If the religion continues for some arbitrary period, then it is genuine; why did it persevere, because it is genuine. If it doesn't last that long, then it was not genuine; why, because it didn't meet your arbitrary standard. But you have no way of knowing that Christianity will continue, any more than the acolytes of the Eleusinian mysteries knew that their religion was going to end after them. So this is something of a prediction, that Christianity will continue to prosper and not fail. And you are not a prophet. Your predictions have no value. And the example of the Eleusinian mysteries shows the hollowness of your claim. Their religion lasted 1,500 years or so. You have no way of vouchsafing the success of Christianity any more than they had of their religion. So the Eleusinian mysteries presents a counter-example to the claim that a religion will persevere if it is genuine, as the Eleusinian mysteries both did and did not persevere, yielding the conclusion that they both were and were not true, according to your argument, and that's absurd. Any other interpretation of your argument seems to embody nothing more than a lottery effect. Some religions were bound to persevere, it just so happens Christianity is one of those. Its persevering tells us nothing unless you can establish that it persevered for justifiable reasons, and that leads us back to Hume and human psychology. So, no, your claims and your argument for the truth of your beliefs does not hold up to inspection.