Christians : How do we know the Bible is true ?

First hand knowledge is internal, it cannot be proven to another person...

The bible, on the other hand is a control device... It goes out of it's way to try and prove itself...What so-called apostles said, and churches built up around these so-called inspirations are null and void, when you know what race they originate from, and it's purpose...

The knowing of this information is internal, intuition if you like, but, IT IS MUCH MORE...Remove the filters of religion and you may know as well...

This really does seem to get to the heart of it. It's even funnier to quote Machiavelli via a rapper who also didn't read the book but leaving that aside it is an interesting analogy to think of Christian evangelists as using the method from The Prince.

They have a true version of history which they admit (at least amongst themselves) requires faith (sola fide is the phrase I believe). Faith is, by definition, belief without evidence. However, when the Christians speak to those outside their group, like Marxists, they use arguments that are intentionally designed to obscure the true nature of their faith. This is why day after day we get these "no, no, really, I have evidence, it's not just a priori assumptions" threads from the OP. He's smart enough to realize that if he made his real argument, no one would listen to him.

Pretending that my couple paragraphs were a wall of text was especially entertaining.

2pac studied Machiavelli in depth while in prision was a fan and had read his books several times.

The 10 Commandments Originated in the Egyptian Book of the Dead... Spell 128.

some scholars hypothesize that the "negative confession" may be the basis for the Biblical Ten Commandments.

"Faith by definition is believing in something which cannot be seen. "

But also,
Hebrews 11:1" Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration [or demonstration by evidence] of realities though not beheld. 2 For by means of this the men of old times had witness borne to them."

You cannot see the wind, but you can perceive it nonetheless, because you can see the "demonstration by evidence" of its' effects.

If you never look out the window or go outside because, say,a Bart Ehrman has warned small, tender you of the dangers that you will succumb to a belief in a massive centuries-old hoax tptb call "wind", then...

Takes just as much faith to not believe

Maybe even more.

Why do you think eyewitness accounts are so reliable? Common experience and studies both show how unreliable it is. In this case, the writings are made by partisans. Bible scholars also know that there are far more discrepancies than most realize.

Ehrman does not think Christianity or the Bible are hoaxes. He wrote a book refuting the claims that Jesus did not exist. He is just well aware of the problems of accuracy in the Bible.

[link to en.wikipedia.org]

[link to www.harpercollins.com]

The OP removed his Machiavelli quote.

Well done OP.




/|\

My reading list is voluminous and diverse. I've read many of the world's religious and mythical texts.

Einstein didn't drop to his knees and become a Christian. I'm not claiming that reading the Gospels will always cause instant conversions. I think there's something special about the Gospels, though. Einstein, a non-religious j ew, recognized that. The story of Jesus Christ is profoundly moving. I don't think it's possible for a person to sit and read the Gospels and not feel something powerful.

Just dropped by to give you yet another BS flag and to vote "absolute BS"

Yes, I'll rephrase my statement.

The truth of the Bible is best seen in simply reading the gospels, I think. It is unlike reading anything else, I think. I agree with, of all people, Albert Einstein, who said:

"No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."

Einstein said this but did not himself become a Christian. That point is not lost on me. The words and deeds of Jesus Christ are profoundly moving on many levels.


"The fact that many, many people have done exactly what your quote says is impossible seems to suggest something wrong with the claim; rather than wrong with all those different people."


I'm going to double down on my claim. I think that there is something wrong with those different people.

Last Edited by Thunder Crack on 05/20/2012 11:26 PM

No it did not.

The artifact of the Exodus have been found that confirms the biblical account.

Bible is PURE TRUTH

Bible is backed up by scientific facts

[link to www.bible.ca]

Love this website!
[link to s8int.com]

[link to www.creationists.org]

[link to www.dinosaursandman.com]

100% as the Bible said all along.

Why won't the MSM show all this?

Dinosaur bones have been found, those must confirm evolution.

You can never know it's true until after you are dead. You have to accept it in faith, then it becomes true.

No it does not.. it confirms a global flood since the only way to get a fossil is rapid sedimentary conditions found globally with the global fossil record - yet confirming the biblical account again.

It is "the faith of Jesus" backed by a long HISTORY and SCIENCE.

Perhaps your wording could also be: "that there is something different with those wrong people"

Perhaps they weren't drawn:

John 6:44
No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him


Perhaps they can't see:

Isa 6
9 And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.

Perhaps they aren't loved:

Romans 9:13
As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.


Re: Einstein-

James 2:19
... the devils also believe, and tremble.



)(

I don't mean to single out Ehrman. It's just that everyone, including Ehrman, that I've seen pointing out specific "problems of accuracy" in the Bible have, so far, proved to be, themselves, inaccurate, whether mistakenly or otherwise.
If I can do research on a specific claim of Bible "inaccuracy" or "inconsistency" and discover the claim of inaccuracy to be inaccurate? This, for me is nothing short of amazing. Feels like a blessing, one I'd love to share.
Maybe even a fulfillment of this?:

"Isaiah 54:17 Any weapon whatever that will be formed against you will have no success, and any tongue at all that will rise up against you in the judgment you will condemn. This is the hereditary possession of the servants of Jehovah, and their righteousness is from me,” is the utterance of Jehovah."

But here's the important part:

55 Hey there, all YOU thirsty ones! Come to the water. And the ones that have no money! Come, buy and eat. Yes, come, buy wine and milk even without money and without price. 2 Why do YOU people keep paying out money for what is not bread, and why is YOUR toil for what results in no satisfaction? Listen intently to me, and eat what is good, and let YOUR soul find its exquisite delight in fatness itself. 3 Incline YOUR ear and come to me. Listen, and YOUR soul will keep alive, and I shall readily conclude with YOU people an indefinitely lasting covenant respecting the loving-kindnesses to David that are faithful. 4 Look! As a witness to the national groups I have given him, as a leader and commander to the national groups

That there is something wrong with people who aren't moved is a narrow view.

And what is silly is the idea that getting this feel is the way to judge the truth. Those people should try reading a section in one gospel, and then read the same stories in other gospels. This is how to detect inconsistencies. Careful factchecking can't be beat.

Diversity of opinion and experience, is not inconsistencies.

Possibly, however a view being narrow or not widely held doesn't make it wrong.


I don't think it's silly at all. It doesn't matter if it's fiction or history our motivations to read are usually comprised of the the desire to understand and feel what any author is attempting to convey.



Fact checking is fine for history and textbooks. The key for divining the truth of the New Testament is objectivity. Our courts of law have taught us inconsistencies are to be expected in the testimonies of several witnesses. To the contrary, if all the witnesses agree perfectly we should suspect these testimonies have been cooked and there would be ample reason to believe all have something to hide.

On the other hand if one witness out-right contradicts the other four witnesses in his multiple letters derived and based, solely by his own testimony, on 'spiritual visitations' as opposed to the sworn testimony of the four other eye witnesses to the pure teaching of their shared flesh and blood teacher, which do suppose should be admissible in court as reliable truth?

Outlined above is the true and factual story of the New Testament Bible. What has been revealed to me, aided by the Holy Spirit, is that the Christian Bible clearly shows that man must not live their lives based on the words of men as if they were The Holy Word of God.

The topic of the true role of Saul/Paul has been discussed at length on this forum a number of times. I've noticed that whenever it gets dredged up lately, although there are many subscribers to the 'Paul is the False Apostle' belief system, it is quickly glossed over and drowned out by those that would have us move on and fight over more comfortable/familiar issues.

This why I am sure the OP, whatever his/her agenda is, chose to completely ignore my pertinent observation to the thread title:



I provided these links only as proof of Paul/Saul's true nature. I differ from almost all Anti-Paul advocates in that the message is not that we desperately need to return to strict adherence to old laws but that we should understand and follow Jesus/Yashua's Christ/Messiah's much deeper teaching of the true law and discount entirely the writings of all men.

That the Christian Greek Scriptures were presented and accepted as inspired is clear (1Co 14:37; Ga 1:8, 11, 12; 1Th 2:13), the apostle Peter in one statement including Paul’s letters with the rest of the Scriptures. (2Pe 3:15, 16) Thus the entire body of the Scriptures comprise the unified and harmonious written Word of God.—Eph 6:17.

Below are above-cited scriptures:
(1 Corinthians 14:37) If anyone thinks he is a prophet or gifted with the spirit, let him acknowledge the things I am writing to YOU, because they are the Lord’s commandment.
(Galatians 1:8) However, even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to YOU as good news something beyond what we declared to YOU as good news, let him be accursed.
(Galatians 1:11, 12) For I put YOU on notice, brothers, that the good news which was declared by me as good news is not something human; 12 for neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught [it], except through revelation by Jesus Christ.
(1 Thessalonians 2:13) Indeed, that is why we also thank God incessantly, because when YOU received God’s word, which YOU heard from us, YOU accepted it, not as the word of men, but, just as it truthfully is, as the word of God, which is also at work in YOU believers.
(2 Peter 3:15, 16) Furthermore, consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul according to the wisdom given him also wrote YOU, 16 speaking about these things as he does also in all [his] letters. In them, however, are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unsteady are twisting, as [they do] also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.
(Ephesians 6:17) Also, accept the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the spirit, that is, God’s word,

Peter accepted Paul's words as inspired, right?

Historically and to be technically semantic, no.

In what world could Peter define Paul's word's in any way as Holy scripture? There is no rightly understandable way.

Read the links provided. At least two of them touch on that particular point.

Leaving aside the fact second Peter is the only book all biblical scholars have agreed for over 16000 years is a completely forgery.

^That's alot of years^


lol



:)