What makes the Bible so believable for people?

[jonathan180iq]

Honestly I can't think of a single thing.

Nobody knows who wrote it, with any degree of certainty. No names of the original authors, nobody knows who was on the Council of Trent , Council of Nicea Etc.

It's obviously been redacted , has incomplete information and has gaps in its narratives. Side-by-side variations are noted in each version of the Bible that exist today to substantiate that is indeed the case.

The Bible clearly is not a divinely inspired collection of books either , evidenced by Christianity's vast and varied amount of denominations and sects, who, to this day remain visibly at odds with ongoing issues over interpretation and meaning, making it clear there's no evidence of any type of guiding hand at play to indicate it now or was ever divinely inspired to begin with at its inception.

There's no real support or proofs to the notion of divine harmonization between one author with another throughout the Testaments over significant periods of time to substantiate any type of harmony exists because each subsequent book could be "harmonized" with each proceeding book by simply reading what each proceeding book said and conveniently changing the subsequent book to "fit" each narrative to uphold the claim that the subsequent authors did not know what the preceding authors wrote making such alleged harmony between books a divine proof a Biblical accuracy and credibility.

Oral tradition is actually worthless. If it wasn't, it could have been used and demonstrated today as a living testament of reliability and accuracy but it isn't for a reason. Obvious reasons.

Hence the requirement for writing something down , and we've seen how effective that can be.


Why would anybody be willing to think the Bible is for one reason or another a proper foundation to base an entire religion on and in cases, people's own lives to point of believability that it would trump logic and science?

I encourage everyone to read the Bible!

If you don't come away feeling like the Gospels are more of a sitcom than a revered piece of historical literature, I'd be surprised.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Sorry, but have you read any of the church “traditions” of early churches regarding to the 1st century “saints” (apostles, disciples of the 1st century CE), eg miracles they were said to have performed, their acts of martyrdom, and their acts of faiths.

And the stories of their martyrs were often conflicting, because there could be different versions to their death, depending on the locations and their local lores.

These “traditions” were telling anything but the “truth”.

They were nothing more than propaganda, invented stories of miracles, that were perpetrated by the early churches. None of these traditions were ever verified, other than the churches say-so.

I have read the Holy Bible, and also, some apocryphal accounts and some other early traditions. They are distinctly different.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Nah. You’re just wrong here. Take a real church history and polity course.

You may have forgotten one of my degrees is a Bachelor's of Religion from a secular university. Respectfully, Rome has a different gospel and numerous non-biblical doctrines.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Bible alone was never the historic faith.

The Bible contains statements that it is above all historic traditions of persons. Surely a main point of Christ's fights with the Pharisees was their oral, Talmudic tradition versus scripture!

 

[BilliardsBall]

That’s what you THINK. Thats not what the Tradition tells us.

Sorry, but Jesus said, "I AM truth," and "staying in the Word of God, abiding in Me, sets men free, truly free." Where Rome says something different starting 3 centuries later, is none of my interest.

 

[sojourner]

You may have forgotten one of my degrees is a Bachelor's of Religion from a secular university. Respectfully, Rome has a different gospel and numerous non-biblical doctrines.

Rome has the same four everyone else has. Everyone has “non-biblical” doctrines because, as you should well understand, 1) there was no Bible for the first 450 years of the church. Therefore, most doctrines didn’t come from what was non-existent. 2) There is more than one valid interpretation for biblical texts, so the standard called “biblical” is a very fluid concept, meaning that it’s teally not a very conclusive yardstick. 3) The Bible is part of —indeed, a product of — the broader Tradition, from which ALL doctrine comes.

 

[sojourner]

The Bible contains statements that it is above all historic traditions of persons. Surely a main point of Christ's fights with the Pharisees was their oral, Talmudic tradition versus scripture!

The Bible IS part of the broader Tradition. Since most people in ancient Judaic culture were illiterate, “text vs. oral” is a non-argument. The way the Law was taught was oral, not by reading. Jesus would most likely have learned the same way the rest of the Parisees did. Remember: Talmud is sort of inseparable from the text. The main point of contention was intent, not content.

 

[sojourner]

Sorry, but Jesus said, "I AM truth," and "staying in the Word of God, abiding in Me, sets men free, truly free." Where Rome says something different starting 3 centuries later, is none of my interest.

Since the Faith is also a very fluid concept, changing over time — and not something dealt with in a vacuum — your approach is misled. Especially since “Bible alone” was begun after 15 centuries. Sounds like you believe that the Roman church was begun with Constantine. If so, you’d be wrong. Again: a real course in church history might serve you well.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Rome has the same four everyone else has. Everyone has “non-biblical” doctrines because, as you should well understand, 1) there was no Bible for the first 450 years of the church. Therefore, most doctrines didn’t come from what was non-existent. 2) There is more than one valid interpretation for biblical texts, so the standard called “biblical” is a very fluid concept, meaning that it’s teally not a very conclusive yardstick. 3) The Bible is part of —indeed, a product of — the broader Tradition, from which ALL doctrine comes.

Sorry, by "gospel" I meant saving gospel of trusting Christ, not the four books of the gospels. Rome has never rescinded or recanted the Council of Trent:

List of excommunicable offences from the Council of Trent - Wikipedia

 

[BilliardsBall]

The Bible IS part of the broader Tradition. Since most people in ancient Judaic culture were illiterate, “text vs. oral” is a non-argument. The way the Law was taught was oral, not by reading. Jesus would most likely have learned the same way the rest of the Parisees did. Remember: Talmud is sort of inseparable from the text. The main point of contention was intent, not content.

I understand fully, but when challenged on matters of Talmudic and Mosaic law and practice, Jesus would invariably quote the Tanakh, so would all the NT authors. Only once or twice is an outside source or tradition referenced.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Since the Faith is also a very fluid concept, changing over time — and not something dealt with in a vacuum — your approach is misled. Especially since “Bible alone” was begun after 15 centuries. Sounds like you believe that the Roman church was begun with Constantine. If so, you’d be wrong. Again: a real course in church history might serve you well.

The original Roman church was addressed rather early by Paul, in the Book of the Romans, which leads like a single, lengthy injunction against the RCC.

 

[sojourner]

Sorry, by "gospel" I meant saving gospel of trusting Christ, not the four books of the gospels. Rome has never rescinded or recanted the Council of Trent:

List of excommunicable offences from the Council of Trent - Wikipedia

We don’t take away the foundation upon which a building is built, either. Nor do we tear down the whole building when giving it a design makeover. Those tenets are both solid and foundational for the Faith. Those stones are there, no matter how much wallpaper the Protestant Interior Designer slaps over them.

 

[sojourner]

I understand fully, but when challenged on matters of Talmudic and Mosaic law and practice, Jesus would invariably quote the Tanakh, so would all the NT authors. Only once or twice is an outside source or tradition referenced.

The NT is heavily influenced by Greek culture. Why would they quote Judaic Tradition? Even th Last Supper is presented as a Roman Symposium, and not as a Judaic feast.

 

[sojourner]

The original Roman church was addressed rather early by Paul, in the Book of the Romans, which leads like a single, lengthy injunction against the RCC.

If one reads it through that biased lens, maybe. Paul is also really harsh with Corinth, which is Greek and not Roman. The Roman Church is not nearly the Evil Empire many Protestants make it out to be.

 

[sojourner]

I encourage everyone to read the Bible!

If you don't come away feeling like the Gospels are more of a sitcom than a revered piece of historical literature, I'd be surprised.

Read it. Studied it. Exegeted parts of it professionally. Prepare to be surprised.

 

[gnostic]

I have read the Holy Bible, and also, some apocryphal accounts and some other early traditions. They are distinctly different.

Christianity comprised more than just the Bible.

All later churches, as in modern sects, come from the early Greek and Roman church teachings, and that included church traditions and other texts, apocrypha and otherwise.

Whether your sect do accept or don’t accept the extra-biblical literature or traditions, depends on the sects.

And Jude seemed to have knowledge of apocryphal literature, like 1 Enoch and the Assumptions of Moses.

 

[BilliardsBall]

We don’t take away the foundation upon which a building is built, either. Nor do we tear down the whole building when giving it a design makeover. Those tenets are both solid and foundational for the Faith. Those stones are there, no matter how much wallpaper the Protestant Interior Designer slaps over them.

My friend,

I'm a Jew who rejected all Gentile religion before converting. My conversion came via Bible reading, mostly. The Bible happens to coincide with some Protestant maxims, however, many hundreds or thousands of sects (however you count such things), each and ALL of them going from the scriptures, never found transubstantiation, Marian adoration, etc. in the scriptures.

For example, "trust God for salvation, not works" is something I find in both testaments. You can say ALL early church fathers believed X, and even if true, which it isn't, since I can find substitutionary atonement, etc. very early, I will not say the early church trumps the Tanakh, which is MUCH older than the historic "church". Again, a Jewish perspective, and the NT DOES interpret the OT, but I find "the Protestant faith" in Tanakh. Also, over 90% of the NT seems to be direct Halachic commentary on the OT.

I do agree re: tenets of the faith, but I think we interpret them differently.

 

[BilliardsBall]

The NT is heavily influenced by Greek culture. Why would they quote Judaic Tradition? Even th Last Supper is presented as a Roman Symposium, and not as a Judaic feast.

Huh? The Last Supper is a seder, Jesus does the traditional head of household teaching, wine and matzo are shared, a sop from the lamb, the service is held in a home, etc. I grew up observing Passover seders in homes.

The NT IS heavily influenced by Greek culture, mainly in reproving Greek culture--reproving gnosticism, ascetism, sinful lifestyles...

 

[BilliardsBall]

If one reads it through that biased lens, maybe. Paul is also really harsh with Corinth, which is Greek and not Roman. The Roman Church is not nearly the Evil Empire many Protestants make it out to be.

My point is the epistle to Rome is the place where the Gentile church is admonished against anti-semitism ("God really wants to restore the natural branches") and Rome was for some time anti-semitic in saying the Jews killed the Christ (rather than the predetermined plan for Christ to die under a sentence imposed by Rome!).

The Roman church is not an evil empire to me, but all things proceed biblically from a correct understanding of the saving gospel. I'm not a Calvinist and not an Arminian and wish you'd stop saying I'm a Protestant, I'm and evangelical and am not Protesting anything.

Rome says, "Trust Christ to begin your faith journey towards possible salvation" but I say, "Trust Christ to receive eternal life as a free gift IMHO". Not an evil empire but a distinction that puts millions of people at risk for something between misinformation and loss of salvation.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Christianity comprised more than just the Bible.

All later churches, as in modern sects, come from the early Greek and Roman church teachings, and that included church traditions and other texts, apocrypha and otherwise.

Whether your sect do accept or don’t accept the extra-biblical literature or traditions, depends on the sects.

And Jude seemed to have knowledge of apocryphal literature, like 1 Enoch and the Assumptions of Moses.

Over 90% of NT doctrines, I find, are from the OT. 1 Enoch is either quoted once (Jude) or we have the dates wrong for authorship and 1 Enoch is quoting Jude!

I want you to realize that almost every sect, ever, except for a few of hundreds or thousands, each built or schism-built from reading the Bible, and usually saying "Let's try to forget presuppositions and traditions and see what the Bible says," and then they all said, "Saved by trusting Jesus". Even the cults say, "Trust Jesus to begin, then do a bunch of works."