why believe the bible?
 

so i've been wondering this for a while: why do people believe the bible? we take other religous myths as only being myths and fanciful stories, whether they were passed down in written or oral form. yet with the new and old testament, many people seem (to me at least) to rather blindly accept them at face value. it doesn't make much sense to me. there are ancient historians from rome who we know about and have been discredited as being very biased and not necessarily completely factual, so why do people take the old testament as face value? we don't know who wrote it after all.

i learned in my early medieval history class about how after rome became christian, and the church established in what would be the first modern official establishment (i know i'm not saying what i mean in a nice articulate manner, i can't find the right words. i think you know what i mean though), a council of church officials took all of the different versions and books of the new testament, went through them, edited them, threw out some books, used others, and created a codefied new testament. so i have a hard seeing the NT as being divenly inspired. (this was i think around 400 AD, not sure though, took that class some 6 years ago).

so could someone explain why this is? if you beleive, why?

i don't believe in what they say. to me, it was a book of stories that someone wrote from oral tales, then passed down, and people kept believing not because it was necessarily true, but because people kept telling the next generation that that was the way it is, the truth.

so i guess it seems to me that when you have faith in the bible, you're really having faith in the person who told you about it, who had faith in the person he was told about it by, and so on and so forth.

anyways, i realize this is a bit disjointed, maybe really two threads in one, but it's been a long tiring day. i'm not asking this to upset anyone or troll or anything, i'm genuinly curious as to what you all think.

thanks.

You raise a couple of different issues, so I'll try to address each of them directly.

First, you ask about the process used to compile what we know today as the Bible. Clearly, in ancient Israel and ancient Rome, as you noted, history was often transmitted orally. Over time, the history of the Jews, the life of Christ, and the missionary journeys of Paul and other apostles were recorded in written form. Beginning in the third century, the church fathers began to evaluate the many different accounts that had been floating around since the middle of the first century. In evaluating them, they had to apply a variety of criteria in determining which were true and belonged in the cannon and which were false. In short, after much debate and nearly two hundred years, the Council of Carthage in 400 AD finally set the cannon Scripture, essentially establishing the Bible that we have today.

Much of the material that was not included in the Bible is still available today, and it's clear why such material has not persisted through history. Apocryphal material does not reflect the same style or character as the material in the Bible.

The church councils didn't edit and twist material to comprise the Bible. Their task was simply to recognize the divine inspiration of certain books. Do these books reflect the character of God as displayed in other texts? Are these books historically and doctrinally consistent with the tradition of the church?

There are a lot of reasons that people believe in the Bible. The trend in recent years has been to prove the reliability of the Bible with arguments that stress the Bible's honesty, unity, preservation, historical and geographical accuracy, and its prophetic accuracy.

I think if you use these types of standards, you might prove the Bible to be more reliable than other holy books (i.e. the Qu'ran, the Book of Mormon, etc.), but I don't think it gives anyone a compelling reason to believe.

The reason that I believe in the Bible is because it has provided a meta-narrative for a community of faith for nearly two thousand years. It tells the story of God's involvement in human history. It describes the nature of humanity and the interjection of God into history in the person of Jesus Christ. The Bible tells the story of Christ's life, his death, and his resurrection. Simply put, I believe the Bible because it claims to be the truth and for two thousand years, communities of faith all around the world have worshipped the God revealed in it.

I know that probably doesn't answer all the objections, but it's a start.

marcus

Why Not?

It's not what the WORDS says; it's what YOU get out of it.

Here's a great sense of the humanity of the bible!!

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus 20:13. "Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them." Romans 1:32.

More wonderful examples of the humanity of god and his bible at the link below. Obviously, I don't believe a word in the bible.

LINKY

It's something to believe in, before you get the answer.

I rate the bible alongside Ancient Greek myths. Both are equally believable.

I went out with a priest's daughter. She admitted that she thought many parts of the bible were complete bollocks.

Anyone who defends the bible in its entirety is an ignorant fool.

Anyone who believes in the essence of what it is trying to say has got it right.

Unfortunately many of those then don't believe it applies to them.
As they go to church each sunday they are somehow immune.

Its ok to cheat your customers because you believe in christ and so he'll forgive you.
Its ok to kill people from other religions because you are doing it for God or because that person was evil.

I have no truck with christianity. Its followers tend to be hypocrits.

That guy was really, really trying to disprove the Bible. He did a terrible job though :\. He took a bunch of verses way out of context, like saying that the Bible says Jesus wasn't God because Paul called him a man.

Paul was pretty deranged, in my opinion.
His books alone are reason enough to doubt the rest of the books. If anyone says they will curse any man OR angel that preaches the gospel differently from him, he's setting himself above God. It is a very un-Christian point of view.

To throw in a wrinkle... what Bible exactly are you referring to?
The King James Version, New Day Bible, Giddion Bible, Mormon Bible, Revised Standard Version, New American Standard etc. (you get the idea).
If you ever choose to read one, might I suggest the King James Version, it's the truest to original there is. Once you have read the bible or even a book (if you are not that eager) and have any questions as to the meaning, structure or origin, try talking to God, praying, fasting and entering into a Holy Relationship with Christ. He will answer all your questions in due time.

Hahaha, this is an entertaining thread. I think I'll join.

I believe every piece of shit that the Bible says. I used to be a blameless Christian -who didn't go to church- for awhile in high school, but after I graduated, me and ev0l became best friends. Yeah, and I didn't want to claim Christianity and join the bandwagon of super-hypocritical Christians out there. Personally, I think Christianity is a fun and fulfilling religion, but I didn't get that idea from looking at other Christians. Looking at other Christians, I'd think that Christianity was a washed up cult who's members didn't even know the first thing about the religion in the first place. I got my view of Christianity from walking with god (per say) myself.

sidenote
Christians -alot of them- give christanity a bad rep.
My advice: Don't look at christianity through christians. Experience it for yourself and then formulate your jack-shit opinions about it.
/sidenote

Another reason why I'm so pro-Christianity is probably because I attended a Christian high school, elementary school, and pre-k. Though I don't think my parents are Christians, they were set on getting me closer to god. This I am thankful for -even if that high school did give me a shitty education (but I turned out alright didn't I?).

I'm telling you that I believe the bible in it's entirety (as far as i can remember) because of personal experience (mostly). Any nay-sayers of the bible wont find me at their door proclaiming Holy Pimping Jesus is gunnuh send 'em to hell, but they can bet that there's no possible way they're going to convince me that the bible is a lie and that Christianity is false. That's not to say that I'm hard set on Christianity even if a valid point is presented in the other direction, but only that there's nothing on this shit pile we call a planet that is more believable than the bible, and god (IMO).

Furthermore, there’s actually proof of the bible. The creationist theory has been proven beyond debatability –to me. Personal convictions (and I don’t like that word) keep me in check as far as beliefs go, etcetera.

I'm still not claiming Christianity for myself, but if I were to jump back into religion and start actually 'obeying' the laws and shit, that religion would be Christianity (word count check for 'Christianity in this post: lots).

HAHAHAHAHA that site is pretty funny.

And another thing: some of the new translations of the bible are getting… questionably far from the original text. Well, anything in English has already been distorted enough, so the more we translate and translate for sake of understanding, the more we stray from the truth. It’s that … umm damnit… it’s that … that theory that everything, when messed with, goes towards disorder –I forget the name of the theory. What we should do –or maybe what would be optimal- is stop translating to help people understand it. People need to grow a brain and THINK. THINK MUTHERFUCKER! THINK! I don’t consider all these new translations of the bible as the actual bible. They’re basically just ‘views’ and stuff. Instead of saying “the new blah blah translation” it should say “This is the Bible…I reworded it though” or “This is the Bible IMO”.

"sidenote
Christians -alot of them- give christanity a bad rep.
My advice: Don't look at christianity through christians. Experience it for yourself and then formulate your jack-shit opinions about it.
/sidenote"

I 100% agree. Even more so, it's hypocritical of me to say that of other Christians when I'm a Christian posting on a site known for its porn. I struggle with sexual sin.

Forgot one of the most important parts of the history of the bible. When it was first transcribed for the common person, the church felt that it was too difficult for the common person to understand. Thus they created the first mass-market version of the bible, known as the vulgate (same root as the word vulgar, for the common person) upon which most subsequesnt translations are based. This is one of the reasons why some religious difference never fail to amuse me (such as the Jehova's Witnesses insisting that Jesus was killed on a stake and not on a cross).

How was this taken out of context?

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus 20:13

What does this mean to you? Tell me that I'm wrong if you think I am, but that means that god hates gay men and wishes death upon them! If you believe in the bible and follow this faith you're saying you believe in everything the bible teaches.... So how many gay men have you killed lately? :eek:

This is exactly what drives me insane about religion. When there's a part of the bible someone doesn't want to believe in they just act as though it doesn't even exist. Well, it does exist and how can you claim to be a believer in faith if you don't believe in every word of the bible. I don't really care what else the bible may say because that sentence is enough to make me vomit. The ignorant thing about that sentence above is it is on many religious sites that hate gays. They love it and teach people and their kids to hate gays. Religion spreads more hate than anything else I've ever encountered in my life and I will never be a part of it.

:lol:

Unlike other religion's material the majority of the Bible is historical fact.

Prove it!

If you could teach me that whole water to wine thing, that'd be super. But seriously, great responses guys!

So because of a few stories that you deem not possible, the whole of the bible is not true???

That's absolutely correct. I think the entire bible is the most distributed piece of fiction ever produced.

fic·tion

• An imaginative creation or a pretense that does not represent actuality but has been invented.
• The act of inventing such a creation or pretense.
• A lie
• A literary work whose content is produced by the imagination and is not necessarily based on fact

CSflim, that's a great letter. I laughed my ass off.

you know the story of the boy who cried wolf? well, a few stories that are beyond being realistic kinda destroys the credibility of the rest, IMO.

You are insane, the majority of the old testament is historical FACT. From when the 12 tribes moved to Egypt, when the Egyptian's made them slaves, the Exodus, the 40 years in the desert, the war's with Jericho, all of the many kings of Israel, The Persian exile, King David, and most importantly the historical fact that Jesus did exist.

I'm referring to whatever book the person reading the question believes in. I'm non-religous and don't believe in any of them, so I'm curious as to why people who believe in whatever one they do do.

Did he?

Are you sure?

i've been doing a lot of research on the subject lately. he did exist. new questions arise, like how many of him existed, and if they were anything like the biblical jesus. in fact, i have found that there are three quite distinct jesuses to study- historical, biblical, and traditional.

the IMPORTANT thing is to follow the traditional Christ. the Church uses tradition to make the Christian new testament into something pure and concrete. you don't have to believe to have faith. the message is real.

i'm going to start a thread to discuss this idea further...

Roman's kept extensive records of executions, so yes that is just one way we know he existed.

Did either one of you click my links?

If he did exist.... I say again. Prove it. If he did exist then that should be a simple thing to do and there hasn't been a person who claims that he did live that can prove a thing.

"What does this mean to you? Tell me that I'm wrong if you think I am, but that means that god hates gay men and wishes death upon them! If you believe in the bible and follow this faith you're saying you believe in everything the bible teaches.... So how many gay men have you killed lately? "

Yes, I believe homosexualiy is wrong, and I believe that men are to be with women. Doesn't the bible, however, also say let ye without sin cast the first stone?

What does that have to do with anything?

All due respect to your links, most scholars, even the athiest ones, believe there was indeed an historical Jesus.

I don't. :D

Then why is it that NOBODY can prove to me that he did. Everyone ignores me asking for proof of existance. Surely, if he did exist then it wouldn't be a difficult thing to do for the followers of the faith, right?

So are the majority of Ancient Greek Legends. Do you believe in Cyclopses?

Similarly, I know plenty of Celtic Myths, as they are based in Irealnd, and there is lots of evidence to back up the fact that many of these wars and conflicts did in fact take place?

Do I believe that Cú Cullain single handedly defeated the entire army of Ulster when they attempted to invade, becasue he was in possession of a magic sword? No I most certainly do not!

As for the bible.
Do I believe in a man (possibly) named Jesus? Yes.

the story of the bible, from a historical perspective.

Mary at the age of approx twelve was sold by her father to joseph for marriage. This was how marrage was done at the time. Mary was a virgin, and so fetched a high price. Virgins were worth far more to prospective husbands than "used goods".
Mary and Joesph were engaged, and were to be married in a year.
Before the marriage arrived, Mary had become pregnant. This was obviously a great cause for concern. Such a thing was obviously looked upon very poorly. If joesph wished, he could have had mary put to death. However, he chose not to, and the marriage went ahead as planned.
How did she become pregnant?
Of course the christian answer is: It was a miracle!...yeah sure.
A more likely scenario was that she got pregnant, the old fashioned way. Good ole filthy dirty sex. But who was the father?
Perhaps it was just some unrelated man, with whom Mary caught caught up with.
Some claim that she was raped by a Roman soldier. There is evidence in the bible to suggest this, when opponents of Jesus proudly proclaim that at least THEY are not illigetimate. Don't have the exact quote on me, but it's there.
Of course it is possible that the illigetimacy of Jesus was just a rumour promoted by opponent of him.

So why was Joesph so lienient on Mary? Surely he should have been furious?
Well the christian answer is split.
One Gospel claims that Joesph was visited by an angel, who explained the whole deal to joseph about the virgin coneption and the Son of God etc etc.
Another Gospel claims that Joesph was simply a nice man.
Some claim that it was in fact Joeseph that was the father of Mary's child. This to me, makes the most sense, but its possible that the father was one of the other two (just some guy, or a rapist).
Those who say that mary was raped, claim that joeseph took pity on her. Also makes sense.

So far, so unremarkable.

So what about the birth of Jesus? Well, here's where historcal fact starts to contradict the bible. There was no huge cencus of the Roman empire taken at the time of Jesus. Don't try and claim that no evidence of it would be remaining!
So chances are, Jesus was born at home, in Nazareth, not in a stable in Bethlehem.

Jesus was apprently visited both by rich "wise men" and poor shephards. But the wise men are only mentioned in one gospel...the gospel which most panders to the desire of the upper class. The shepards only appear in one gospel...surprise surprise, the one written mostly for the lower class!

So Jesus grew up, and started preaching from the holy scripture. Plenty of people did such things. Nut cases going around preaching was nothing special in those days. It was common for these usurpers to be arrested and dealt with by the Roman forces.
Exactly what happened to Jesus. He was put to death by the Romans.

The End.

That is the story of Jesus from a historical point of view. It almost certainly did happen. The question is, why does it make you believe in God?

I think most of them believe because their parents and role models told them too.

umm, that is one of the more common arguments against his existence. sorry.

some of the better proofs of his existence are found in:

josephus (probably forged)
pontius pilate letter (probably forged)
no longer circulated jewish talmud documents (point to two very non-christ-like people with a few similarities of jesus, but apologists claim they were forgeries after the fact)
the gospel (quite conflicting and contain questional prophecies, but are largely synchronous considering the time & number of writers)

there are plenty of others. i mentioned before, they often paint a picture far different than the traditional jesus. but i think this mary discussion should be restricted to the traditional mary, since that is what the original poster was asking.

in that case i'll go with those who say mary accepted the holy spirit willingly. but i think she got down with joseph after she was married. interesting those who believe mary remained a virgin don't talk about the virgin joseph ;)

i hear that all the time, but i've actually never seen anything confirming it. do you know of any sources or articles?

My thought is that over 1.5 BILLION followers are the proof.
But if we go by similar logic, somone prove to me gravity exists, love exists, hell even the atomic table of elements is based on theory... not proven facts......
Every one has faith, when you sat down at your computer, did you check the legs first? Stop and ponder why it works? No, you have faith. I believe that Jesus did exist, but for me to prove that to you I would have to somehow show you my relationship with God.... which I'm not sure how that would work..... and even then I have a sneaking suspicion you would walk away saying "Well that didn't prove anything."
I say we give due time, if you die and end up rotting in hell.... use that as your proof. If you die and you just turn to dust, hey you make great fertiliser... either way it'll be proven to you.

Yeah for sure Mary didn't stay a virgin, virgin probably means pure of spirit since she too was wihtout sin.

Uh?

how is that possible? i thought everyone was born with original sin?

seems to me that means that 4.5 billion don't follow him. a lot of people can believe a foolish idea, but that doesn't make it any less foolish.

faith has nothing to do with authenticity. faith is believing without proof. i have proof that my desk and chair have legs, and i know why my computer works. what i don't know is whether or not jesus really did exist, and if so, was he the son of god. and then if that's true, is the bible even telling it how it really is.