Is it possible that Christianity is true, yet the Bible contains errors?

[Subduction Zone]

I believe you do but I am sure of what God says.

No, that is a mere belief on your part. How would you demonstrate that you know what God says?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have posted Hebrews 11:1 over and over, but it seems that doubters and opponents of Christianity will never understand it: "Faith is being SURE of what we hope for and CERTAIN of what we do not see" or "faith is the ASSURANCE of what we hope for, the CONVICTION of things not seen".

Those who are not Christians think that faith is hope or wishful thinking. They just don't get it!

Oh we understand better than you do.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe Luke does not reveal his sources but I am sure you haven't talked to any witnesses from that time.

He does not have to. He gave enough information that allows us to check his claims. You do not seem to understand how history works. The same applies to what was in Matthew.

You need to remember that neither of the anonymous authors of those books of the Bible were eyewitnesses or even spoke to any.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Oh we understand better than you do.

I agree with you, and I'd like to repost what I wrote earlier in this thread about it.

It is obvious to me that some Christians enjoy bragging that they have "spiritual discernment" to properly understand the Bible, whereas non-Christians do not. However, what these Christians seem to forget or ignore is the fact that we (and many other non-Christians) were once devout Christians and are well-versed in the Bible. These non-Christians read it, studied it, and prayed for spiritual guidance when they were Christians, just as I did. We didn't forget what we had learned when we renounced our Christian faith. We maintained this knowledge and are now able to use it to challenge the credibility of the Bible.

I'm not an atheist, but as a former Christian, I refer to what you are saying as "removing the rose-colored glasses." I believe this is what helped me better understand the Bible while I was deconverting from Christianity. It was a genuine reexamination of my beliefs, which eventually led me to renounce my belief and faith in God and abandon my Christian faith. My deconversion gradually began as I was training to be an evangelism team leader and a street preacher. However, my questions and doubts about God, Jesus, and the Bible became more substantial while I was assisting my nephew in obtaining his Master of Theological Studies (MTS) degree in order to become an ordained minister. In fact, our extensive reading and study of the Bible and Christian theology led us both to deconvert from Christianity. During the thirty years I was a devout Christian, I thought that reading and studying the Bible on a daily basis would deepen my Christian faith, but all I did was eventually study my way out of believing in God, Jesus, and the Bible. I genuinely believe that I'm far better off in my life without what I consider to be the entrapment of Christianity. I also believe that it was one of the best decisions I've ever made.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

No, that is a mere belief on your part. How would you demonstrate that you know what God says?

Many Christians claim to know what God says, but they tend to contradict other Christians who make the same claim. Ironically, they all think they're right.

 

[jimb]

Many Christians claim to know what God says, but they tend to contradict other Christians who make the same claim. Ironically, they all think they're right.

No Christian that I know claims to have perfect knowledge. (The same applies to non-Christians.) If you were a Christian for a long time then you undoubtedly read this: "For we know only in part, and we prophesy only in part, but when the complete comes, the partial will come to an end." 1 Corinthians 13:9-10

Any Christian who claims to be totally "right" is deceiving her/himself. Of course, the same applies to non-Christians, including yourself and @Subduction Zone

Not to change the subject, but why did you throw your eternal life in the trash?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No Christian that I know claims to have perfect knowledge. (The same applies to non-Christians.) If you were a Christian for a long time then you undoubtedly read this: "For we know only in part, and we prophesy only in part, but when the complete comes, the partial will come to an end." 1 Corinthians 13:9-10

Any Christian who claims to be totally "right" is deceiving her/himself. Of course, the same applies to non-Christians, including yourself and @Subduction Zone

I never said that you claimed have a perfect knowledge. Nor did I claim to have perfect knowledge. I do not know where you got this misunderstanding from.

Not to change the subject, but why did you throw your eternal life in the trash?

You cannot throw away something that never existed.

 

[Dimi95]

You need to remember that neither of the anonymous authors of those books of the Bible were eyewitnesses or even spoke to any.

I am just curious why would you think like that.

You say , 'History doesn' work like that'.
How does it work?

I have said many times here:
'We know that the Gaelic War is written by Ceasar because the writers atributed it to his name.'

The events of acts can be traced very early.
Acts is a sequel of Luke.
So if Acts is a sequel of Luke and Luke is written after Paul's death around 70 AD according to many schollar consensus , or even later let's say , then why is his death absent? Paul died 63-65.

One of the things that can culminate his ministry is suspiciously absent in the writings of Acts and Luke.Not just his , but Peter's also. Why?
No one has ever answered me this question.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

I never said that you claimed have a perfect knowledge. Nor did I claim to have perfect knowledge. I do not know where you got this misunderstanding from.

I've never said that he or other Christians claimed to have perfect knowledge, nor have I ever claimed to have it myself.

You cannot throw away something that never existed.

Exactly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am just curious why would you think like that.

You say , 'History doesn' work like that'.
How does it work?

When it comes to old texts that invoke gods historians treat those parts as myth. Regardless of the religion involved. There is a fair amount of history that was partially related as myth. For example do you think that when it comes to the Trojan War that historians should treat the parts of stories using gods should be treated as factual? How about ancient Indian history or Egyptian? The Abrahamic religions do not get a pass on this either.

I have said many times here:
'We know that the Gaelic War is written by Ceasar because the writers atributed it to his name.'

The events of acts can be traced very early.
Acts is a sequel of Luke.
So if Acts is a sequel of Luke and Luke is written after Paul's death around 70 AD according to many schollar consensus , or even later let's say , then why is his death absent? Paul died 63-65.

No, not "very many". That is very wrong. The scholarly consensus is in the range of 90 CE. Nor was Luke likely to have been written by Luke. Apologists are not scholars. A lot of them like to pretend that they are, but one cannot be a scholar and swear that what you are studying has a preset meaning and still claim to be one. A scholar has to have an open mind.

One of the things that can culminate his ministry is suspiciously absent in the writings of Acts and Luke.Not just his , but Peter's also. Why?
No one has ever answered me this question.

And I have no idea what you are referring to here.

 

[Dimi95]

And I have no idea what you are referring to here.

Let us say that Luke was written 90AD.
Let's take the consensus among schollars for the dating of the Gospels.
I would agree for the sake of the argument.

The question is :
Why no one mentioned Peter's and Paul's death then?
You know how impossible sounds for the writer to not witness to that if the Gospels are written after their death?
Not just impossible , but also naive.

However,I also tend to take evidentialist and philosophical approach.One can test it based on external sources of historical evidence from documentary historical and archeological sources.

The most important figures in that trial narrative have been independently attested by archeological inscriptions in the last 50-60 years.In Israel - 1960, an inscription from Pilate was found , in which he lists himself as the governor of Judea and the inscription is atributed to Tiberius Ceasar.
The Ministry of Jesus is reported to have happend in the reign of the emperor Tiberius(AD 14 until 37).
1 Corinthians 15 is dated also very early.

Have you read Josephus account that is comming from the Arabic World?
It is considered a much credible source..

Christianity emerges from first century and is confronted with persecution untill 4th century CE.We are talking about a period of 300 years.That's a lot of time - a lot.I have seen credible evidence of the most wild scenes of torture.It was not a pleasent thing to be a Christian at that time.It is pretty remerkable that we have such a long list of manuscripts..
That is what these schollars that you reffer to miss to tell the audience - the life of Christians in these 300 years.

I was just curious on your answer , nothing special.

Nice chat

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let us say that Luke was written 90AD.
Let's take the consensus among schollars for the dating of the Gospels.
I would agree for the sake of the argument.

The question is :
Why no one mentioned Peter's and Paul's death then?
You know how impossible sounds for the writer to not witness to that if the Gospels are written after their death?
Not just impossible , but also naive.

Luke was about Jesus and his acts. His death does not appear in the Bible at all. Perhaps he was never killed and the later stories are like other myths. It is hard to say for sure.

However,I also tend to take evidentialist and philosophical approach.One can test it based on external sources of historical evidence from documentary historical and archeological sources.

The most important figures in that trial narrative have been independently attested by archeological inscriptions in the last 50-60 years.In Israel - 1960, an inscription from Pilate was found , in which he lists himself as the governor of Judea and the inscription is atributed to Tiberius Ceasar.
The Ministry of Jesus is reported to have happend in the reign of the emperor Tiberius(AD 14 until 37).
1 Corinthians 15 is dated also very early.

I do not deny that there was a man named Jesus who had a following and was crucified so all of this is rather pointless. I am not full 100% mythicist.

Have you read Josephus account that is comming from the Arabic World?
It is considered a much credible source..

No, but again, does it matter? I know that the Muslims think that he was just a prophet and many do not believe that he was crucified.

Christianity emerges from first century and is confronted with persecution untill 4th century CE.We are talking about a period of 300 years.That's a lot of time - a lot.I have seen credible evidence of the most wild scenes of torture.It was not a pleasent thing to be a Christian at that time.It is pretty remerkable that we have such a long list of manuscripts..
That is what these schollars that you reffer to miss to tell the audience - the life of Christians in these 300 years.

I was just curious on your answer , nothing special.

Nice chat

There definitely was some persecution. But most emperors did not care. A couple of noted ones did not like the Christians at all. And it seems like most stories the stories of persecution grew over the years. Please note, the fact that it was not as you see in many Bible movies and other sources does not mean that it never happened. It only means that there were people that were almost certainly put to death for their beliefs. At that point there usually is no offer of "recant and be free". That appears to be mythical because the Romans may have been cruel but they were not clueless.

 

[Kenny]

No Christian that I know claims to have perfect knowledge. (The same applies to non-Christians.) If you were a Christian for a long time then you undoubtedly read this: "For we know only in part, and we prophesy only in part, but when the complete comes, the partial will come to an end." 1 Corinthians 13:9-10

Any Christian who claims to be totally "right" is deceiving her/himself. Of course, the same applies to non-Christians, including yourself and @Subduction Zone

Simple and true.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Simple and true.

You missed the implied, at least it seemed to be to me, strawman. Though it was a bit strange. I never claimed perfect knowledge. Neither did he. So why he mentioned both of us is rather odd.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

You missed the implied, at least it seemed to be to me, strawman. Though it was a bit strange. I never claimed perfect knowledge. Neither did he. So why he mentioned both of us is rather odd.

I thought that it was definitely a personal jab at the both of us.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I thought that it was definitely a personal jab at the both of us.

Oh there is no doubt that he made a personal jab against you too.

 

[Kenny]

You missed the implied, at least it seemed to be to me, strawman. Though it was a bit strange. I never claimed perfect knowledge. Neither did he. So why he mentioned both of us is rather odd.

I’m sure I missed it… I jumped in at the last moment.

 

[Dimi95]

Luke was about Jesus and his acts. His death does not appear in the Bible at all. Perhaps he was never killed and the later stories are like other myths. It is hard to say for sure.

You have missed the question again.
Maybe you did not understood it the first time , but i am sure that it was very clear the second.

If the writer of Luke is the writer of Acts( as schollars agree), that means that Gospel of Luke is a sequel to the events in Acts. So if they are written as we agreed , then why there is no account of Paul's and Peter's death in the whole NT , since that would culminate their ministry?
The death of James is recorded however.

I do not deny that there was a man named Jesus who had a following and was crucified so all of this is rather pointless.I am not full 100% mythicist.

Neither did i say otherwise.

No, but again, does it matter? I know that the Muslims think that he was just a prophet and many do not believe that he was crucified.

Well , you will be surpised how much the 2 accounts differ.
About Muslims.. It's a bit to 'difficult' to discuss it since it requires knowledge of Arabic language.

There definitely was some persecution. But most emperors did not care. A couple of noted ones did not like the Christians at all.

I must ask , have you read any of these books :
-The Early Persecutions of the Christians
-Persecution in the Early Church: A Chapter in the History of Renunciation
-Christianity and the Roman Government: A Study in Imperial Administration
-The Conflict of Christianity with Heathenism
-The Valerian Persecution: A Study of the Relations between Church and State in the Third Century A. D.
-The Decian Persecution
-The Persecution of Diocletian: A Historical Essay

?

I did not expect such an answer , that is why i am asking.

And it seems like most stories the stories of persecution grew over the years.

Well i think otherwise.
From one side when you look it , you might say confirmation bias , but it will be more clearer if you see all the neccessary data.

Please note, the fact that it was not as you see in many Bible movies and other sources does not mean that it never happened. It only means that there were people that were almost certainly put to death for their beliefs.

I must say that this is just one generelized opinion and nothing more.
I just think there is much more to read.

At that point there usually is no offer of "recant and be free". That appears to be mythical because the Romans may have been cruel but they were not clueless.

Yes,certainly they were not clueless.
Do you know what is strange to me about the Romans?
They did not crucify people for religious claims.And that changed with Jesus and Christianity.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have missed the question again.
Maybe you did not understood it the first time , but i am sure that it was very clear the second.

If the writer of Luke is the writer of Acts( as schollars agree), that means that Gospel of Luke is a sequel to the events in Acts. So if they are written as we agreed , then why there is no account of Paul's and Peter's death in the whole NT , since that would culminate their ministry?
The death of James is recorded however.

I honestly do not know. I could make some wild guess, but that is all that they would be. But not having an answer to a problem is not evidence. Let' see, some wild guesses. If the distance was great enough word may not have reached the author during his lifetime. It was not every day that people traveled back then and that was the only way for news to make it from town to town. There may have been a falling out between the two of them and the author of Acts may not have wanted to bring his name up. Or perhaps the opposite. It could still hurt too much to write about. There could be all sorts of reasons.

Neither did i say otherwise.

Then there was no need to bring that up.

Well , you will be surpised how much the 2 accounts differ.
About Muslims.. It's a bit to 'difficult' to discuss it since it requires knowledge of Arabic language.

Not really. I would not be surprised if they had stories I have never heard of and they are likely to be unaware of all of the Christian scriptures.

I must ask , have you read any of these books :
-The Early Persecutions of the Christians
-Persecution in the Early Church: A Chapter in the History of Renunciation
-Christianity and the Roman Government: A Study in Imperial Administration
-The Conflict of Christianity with Heathenism
-The Valerian Persecution: A Study of the Relations between Church and State in the Third Century A. D.
-The Decian Persecution
-The Persecution of Diocletian: A Historical Essay

?

I did not expect such an answer , that is why i am asking.

No, who were they written by? Who were they published by? Historians or just believers? If the latter, so what? I know that there is a lot of Catholic based propaganda out there. Not reading it only means that I have not been indoctrinated.

Well i think otherwise.
From one side when you look it , you might say confirmation bias , but it will be more clearer if you see all the neccessary data.

Then you do not know the nature of myth. Look at the two contrasting Nativity myths of Jesus. Ten years apart, one goes to Egypt, the other goes back to Nazareth. It takes very contorted reinterpretation to get them to agree with each other.

I must say that this is just one generelized opinion and nothing more.
I just think there is much more to read.

There is a lot of fiction out there. You have to watch out for that.

Yes,certainly they were not clueless.
Do you know what is strange to me about the Romans?
They did not crucify people for religious claims.And that changed with Jesus and Christianity.

You have only there are only two sources that Jesus was killed for religious reasons that I know of. There is the Bible, and there is the Christian version of the works of Josephus. The problem with Josephus is that the book has an Arabic translation too. And it oddly enough does not say that it was the Jews that had Jesus killed, it was purely Roman. Tacitus only says that he received the "extreme penalty" under Pontius Pilate. Other Romans early in the history of Christianity only wrote of the religion and not Jesus. Though it was made clear that Nero at least tried to blame Christians for a fire and he did torture some of them. There was at least one other Emperor that did not the same if not two, but most seemed to have a live and let live attitude.

 

[Dimi95]

I honestly do not know. I could make some wild guess, but that is all that they would be.

I appriciate the honesty.

But not having an answer to a problem is not evidence.

OK
But that's not just any question , and not just any answer
We are talking about the dating of the Gospels.
You can check with what you think is reliable as source regarding this.
But , i am skeptic that you will find any answer regarding the topic.
Not because they are not able to , but because they avoid it.

If the distance was great enough word may not have reached the author during his lifetime.It was not every day that people traveled back then and that was the only way for news to make it from town to town.

Just ask any historian that you think is reliable.
I don't think that anything that comes from me will be usefull to you regardless of how rational it seems.
I find it that to be true based on your answers.

What you stated is impossible , but check with your sources if you think is relevant to know.
If not , still peace.

There may have been a falling out between the two of them and the author of Acts may not have wanted to bring his name up. Or perhaps the opposite. It could still hurt too much to write about. There could be all sorts of reasons.

There is just one possible reasonable answer.
They are written prior to their death.
What you see as evidence now is just a copy of a copy of a copy.

Then there was no need to bring that up.

Well , that's just because you think that filled only the gap of existence.

Not really. I would not be surprised if they had stories I have never heard of and they are likely to be unaware of all of the Christian scriptures.

Not True , The East is well aware of Scriptures for a long time,regardless of they are Hindu , Muslims , Christians , Jews ...
Just the West isn't!
The language barrier is the problem.
They refuse to understand it.

No, who were they written by?

When you ask this question who are they written by , are you reffering to 'beliver' and 'non-beliver'?

Who were they published by?

Persecution in the Early Church: A Chapter in the History of Renunciation by Workman, Herbert B.

You can check yourself the rest if you are interested.

Historians or just believers?

Bias

If the latter, so what? I know that there is a lot of Catholic based propaganda out there. Not reading it only means that I have not been indoctrinated.

So if A is true , then B is also?

Then you do not know the nature of myth.

You generelized the point again.

Look at the two contrasting Nativity myths of Jesus. Ten years apart, one goes to Egypt, the other goes back to Nazareth. It takes very contorted reinterpretation to get them to agree with each other.

They are different accounts.
The problem is that everybody thinks they need to be identical in narrative.
They don't.
I will adress this in my book with precise Greek.

There is a lot of fiction out there. You have to watch out for that.

Yes , i have seen this lately in the denomination i belong to.

You have only there are only two sources that Jesus was killed for religious reasons that I know of. There is the Bible, and there is the Christian version of the works of Josephus. The problem with Josephus is that the book has an Arabic translation too. And it oddly enough does not say that it was the Jews that had Jesus killed, it was purely Roman. Tacitus only says that he received the "extreme penalty" under Pontius Pilate.

So that means Jesus was against the Roman Empire and not against the Jews.
It's pretty odd to me that the Romans did not record it as such.
It's even more odd after the rise of Christianity since it reflects on Jesus.

Other Romans early in the history of Christianity only wrote of the religion and not Jesus.

That means it is religious , and not political issue.

Tacitus is the earliest and that makes him most relevant.

He mentions Jesus in his writings. In his account of Nero's persecution of Christians in 115 AD, he explicitly references Christus, who was crucified by Pontius Pilate and inspired an 'immense multitude' to adhere to his teachings.

Though it was made clear that Nero at least tried to blame Christians for a fire and he did torture some of them. There was at least one other Emperor that did not the same if not two, but most seemed to have a live and let live attitude.

Persecution of Christians: Roman Brutality & Martyrdom in the Early Church

Explore the roots of early Church persecution and the Roman brutality faced by Christians in this historical examination of the persecution of Christians in the ancient world.

www.bartehrman.com

5 Ways Christianity Spread Through Ancient Rome

Sure, there was that extensive road system. But it helped that Christianity didn't paint itself as an exclusive club.

www.history.com