Why do Christians trust the Bible?

[Vivalarevolution]

I'll attempt satisfactory answers for chad32 and jesus h christ.

1)chad- what of the probability that they didn't think it necessary to write until then. The epistles are the earliest verified texts followed by gospels.
Maybe they decided to write gospels only AFTER paul went to rome / the temple was destroyed. Maybe they didn't see any use of writing accounts until after a greater number of people believed. Maybe the fact that so many people became Christian and wanted to learn more about the acclaimed saviour gave them an idea to write the gospels. Maybe AFTER luke and john saw the use and impact of writing it down (matthew, mark) did they write their own accounts ( although luke makes it quite clear why he wrote it

2) Jesus. H. Christ - I think i answered the first part of your question. But the second part of your question . . . I really don't know how to respond. I guess that really does depend on how we CHOOSE to see it and interpret? I'll get back to you on this.
The only way I'll attempt to answer is through another question- did you know biographies of confucius's life weren't available for 400 years after he died. (Of course you first have to believe confucius existed first)

Note this isn't the answer to your most recent question

[Chad32]

If you wait until someone isn't around anymore, and there are no extrabiblical accounts of Jesus and his miracles, then it just looks like you're making up stories. If a lot of people saw something as spectacular as what Jesus was supposed to have done, and what happened after he died, you'd think everyone would be writing this stuff down right then, instead of waiting decades to do it when the information is fuzzy and can't be verified.

"They just didn't feel it was important until long after the events took place" isn't much of a reason.

[vorlon13]

Where to begin with noting all the apostasy in that one ?


Sheesh, heresy, blasphemy, slander, I just don't know where to start.

I renew my call to get some True Christians here, and while we're at it, lets purge the cafeteria cherry pickers, they are doing more for the atheist cause and it is bloody confusing.

You do know that the acronym for 'blasphemy', 'apostasy', and 'heresy' is BAH.

Those are silly words that only diseased minds take seriously.

Why do we tolerate non-believers and prevaricators as defenders of faith ??

Vivalarevolution is a Vivalarevolutionite, a denomination with exactly 1 (one) member. We're swatting lice on gnats, and missing the big battle.

[Vivalarevolution]

Be prepared to get the cosmic Jewish zombie response.

But what is your response? All you know of Christianity comes from a book, which you already agree is not to be taken word for word.

How do you know which words to take and which to disregard? And if your method generates correct results, why do other Christians vehemently disagree with your approach and results? Not to mention every other religion disagreeing with you.

What is the process? I'm trying to understand how this works.

Be warned my response is orthodox and will be foreign to you.
It is a new life started from baptism, which consists of living in a Christ-like way for salvation from sins we commit (no original sin). Also to achieve theosis " being god like" (read fruits of spirit)

Christian living is also showing the fruits of the spirit through yourself and your devotion.

Yeah I'm not satisfied with this answer myself. I'll get back

[JesusHChrist]

2) Jesus. H. Christ - I think i answered the first part of your question. But the second part of your question . . . I really don't know how to respond. I guess that really does depend on how we CHOOSE to see it and interpret? I'll get back to you on this.
The only way I'll attempt to answer is through another question- did you know biographies of confucius's life weren't available for 400 years after he died. (Of course you first have to believe confucius existed first)

Note this isn't the answer to your most recent question

I don't know anything about Confucious, but I would take anything supernatural with a grain of salt, especially when written so far removed. If the claims seem reasonable, then I wouldn't have a reason to doubt it. Of course a scholar of ancient China would have the knowledge and tools to determine what is really from Confucious and what is spurious.

There are claims Vespasian cured the blind with spit - eye witnesses too - and it's written down. Vespasian certainly existed, but do you believe he cured blindness with spit as the eye witnesses claim?

If the only criteria is "eye witness" we'd have to accept many, many extraordinary claims. Caesar turning into a god on the way to heaven and so forth.

So, how are the Jesus claims of supernatural activity any different than the claims for Vespasian, Caesar or Appolonius of Tyrana? On what basis do you accept some and reject others?

[Vivalarevolution]

"They just didn't feel it was important until long after the events took place" isn't much of a reason.

That's not entirely what I wrote. You're quoting a part which seems stupid. Did you not read what I wrote about why I think the popularity of Christian faith after paul stepped in is important?
I "think" the demand for more information about jesus after the destruction of the temple, 35 years after jesus, was what influenced the writing of the gospels. Eyewitnesses were obviously dying out, and people would've wanted to get credible information directly from living apostles about what had been taught by the now dead apostles. Hence I believe the first writer was inspired to write an account and the other 3 followed.

[Jenny A]

The only way I'll attempt to answer is through another question- did you know biographies of confucius's life weren't available for 400 years after he died. (Of course you first have to believe confucius existed first)

Note this isn't the answer to your most recent question

On this forum at least four Christians have at some point said that atheists and secular scholars subject the New Testament to scrutiny that we do not apply to other historical texts.

Confucius is a lovely example of the fact that secular scholars do apply that same scrutiny to other texts. The biography of Confucius is considered suspect because it was written several hundred years after his death. Further, just which of the writings attributed to Confucius was actually written by him is also in dispute. http://www.egs.edu/library/confucius/biography/

[Vivalarevolution]

2) Jesus. H. Christ - I think i answered the first part of your question. But the second part of your question . . . I really don't know how to respond. I guess that really does depend on how we CHOOSE to see it and interpret? I'll get back to you on this.
The only way I'll attempt to answer is through another question- did you know biographies of confucius's life weren't available for 400 years after he died. (Of course you first have to believe confucius existed first)

Note this isn't the answer to your most recent question

I don't know anything about Confucious, but I would take anything supernatural with a grain of salt, especially when written so far removed. If the claims seem reasonable, then I wouldn't have a reason to doubt it. Of course a scholar of ancient China would have the knowledge and tools to determine what is really from Confucious and what is spurious.

There are claims Vespasian cured the blind with spit - eye witnesses too - and it's written down. Vespasian certainly existed, but do you believe he cured blindness with spit as the eye witnesses claim?

If the only criteria is "eye witness" we'd have to accept many, many extraordinary claims. Caesar turning into a god on the way to heaven and so forth.

So, how are the Jesus claims of supernatural activity any different than the claims for Vespasian, Caesar or Appolonius of Tyrana? On what basis do you accept some and reject others?

So now you believe Jesus was really a man in judea circa 1st century CE?

[JesusHChrist]

So now you believe Jesus was really a man in judea circa 1st century CE?

I think the evidence of his very existence is extremely weak, but it is possible.

Carrier's explanation seems far more plausible.

[FatAndFaithless]

So now you believe Jesus was really a man in judea circa 1st century CE?

I think the evidence of his very existence is extremely weak, but it is possible.

Carrier's explanation seems far more plausible.

Not to mention the fact that there's a difference between accepting that a wandering rabbi named Jesus existed, and accepting all of the supernatural accoutrements that are usually attached to him.