How do we know that the information in the Bible is the Truth?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Blue_Serenity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E.E.N.S said:
Then when and why (in your opinion) did God withdraw His Holy Spirit from His Church?
Click to expand...
The Holy Spirit does not belong to the Church, it belongs to those in authority of the Church. It belongs to the men who are the leaders.
 
Blue_Serenity said:
The Holy Spirit does not belong to the Church, it belongs to those in authority of the Church. It belongs to the men who are the leaders.
Click to expand...
I disagree. The Holy Spirit does not belong to any mere man. The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, if anything the Holy Spirit is the Soul of the Church, but I digress…

When and why (in your opinion) was the Holy Spirit removed?

I ask this because you have said numerous times that you agree that the Catholic Church was the right Church, and had authority, until about the year A.D.800 (I guess that answers the “when”), and then you say it no longer had authority and that it changed.

IMO, it’s not too difficult to see that the Catholic Church today is the same Church in 1559; the same in 1054; then same in 800, the same in 392; the same in 102; and the same one that Christ founded.
 
The above discussion can be shortened thus:

We don’t know that the information in the Bible is true.

If you apply reason, you can treat it as any other collection of texts but not treat it as an authority over other people.

If you believe it was inspired, you still cannot treat it as authority over other people. This is because the reason for your belief in inspiration is the actual authority you choose to place yourself under.

On the other hand, if you put this question forward: “What reason do I, as one who does not assume any supernatural realm or divine entity, have to believe the Bible is true?”, there is no answer that can be given.

The upshot is that Christians must accept that the Bible is not something that applies to anyone outside the realm of those who choose to accept it as their authority (or, more realistically, choose to accept parts of it as their authority or choose to accept a particular group’s interpretation of it as their authority).
 
David_Young said:
On the other hand, if you put this question forward: “What reason do I, as one who does not assume any supernatural realm or divine entity, have to believe the Bible is true?”, there is no answer that can be given.

The upshot is that Christians must accept that the Bible is not something that applies to anyone outside the realm of those who choose to accept it as their authority (or, more realistically, choose to accept parts of it as their authority or choose to accept a particular group’s interpretation of it as their authority).
Click to expand...
These two statements do not follow, logically. For, if the messages in the bible are true, then they apply to everyone whether believed or not.
 
David_Young said:
The above discussion can be shortened thus:

We don’t know that the information in the Bible is true.

If you apply reason, you can treat it as any other collection of texts but not treat it as an authority over other people.

If you believe it was inspired, you still cannot treat it as authority over other people. This is because the reason for your belief in inspiration is the actual authority you choose to place yourself under.

On the other hand, if you put this question forward: “What reason do I, as one who does not assume any supernatural realm or divine entity, have to believe the Bible is true?”, there is no answer that can be given.

The upshot is that Christians must accept that the Bible is not something that applies to anyone outside the realm of those who choose to accept it as their authority (or, more realistically, choose to accept parts of it as their authority or choose to accept a particular group’s interpretation of it as their authority).
Click to expand...
Actually, it is not on our own authority that we claim inspiration of the Bible; it was the Church (who got her authority from Christ) that the Canon of Scripture was determined.
 
E.E.N.S said:
Actually, it is not on our own authority that we claim inspiration of the Bible; it was the Church (who got her authority from Christ) that the Canon of Scripture was determined.
Click to expand...
And I agree with that. 🙂
 
It doesn’t change the fact that you choose it to be your authority. It is not as if the church has authority over you that you have not chosen yourself, unlike, say, a government.

The point is that the Bible is not objectively an authority, or demonstrably true.
 
Blue_Serenity said:
Are you seriously asking about 2 Tim. 3: 15-17? Read it and tell me what YOU think it means first and then we’ll go from there.
Yes, I’m seriously suggesting that there are no contradictions in the Bible. God can’t contradict Himself. 😉
Click to expand...
I started a thread last night about the book “Misquoting Jesus” and thus far, haven’t received any replies that have satisfied my uneasiness about the author’s claim. I personally haven’t read the book but I did stumble across it at the bookstore. After i posted about it I received some replies which included a few links that really weren’t helpful. Even a scholar who was critiquing the book seemed to acknowledge a few problems with the Bible.
 
okay this is kind of a problem for me…i got into an arguement with a very good friend of mine who is not of our religion and she thinks that the bible is a hoax…I admit i debated with her but i did not know enough information to openly explain how i know that the bible is the truth…

I believe it is and I know it is but i want to be able to prove this fact…or at least defend my religion…if i were to get her to see she might just give in and admit it. or just give in and ignore the subject from then on…

Anyway i stopped the arguement because she was getting tempermental and i didnt want a big fight on my hands.

Someone could help me on how to defend this issue?
 
Dear Anon–

You might try reading the short book by Howard Graham, entitled How We Got the Bible. It was written in the late 1800s and Mr. Graham eventually became a Catholic based on his research! I thoroghly enjoyed it when I converted from protest-ant a few years ago!
 
suz_slu said:
Dear Anon–

You might try reading the short book by Howard Graham, entitled How We Got the Bible. It was written in the late 1800s and Mr. Graham eventually became a Catholic based on his research! I thoroghly enjoyed it when I converted from protest-ant a few years ago!
Click to expand...
I have that book in pdf format if anyone would like it. 👍
 
Short answer? Because Jesus Christ gave His Church His authority, and that Church said so.
Click to expand...
…as told by the Church, every teaching of which is true. And we know every word is true because the Church *says *that the teaching is true and, if you remember from earlier in this sentence, every teaching of the Church is true. It’s flawless logic!
 
David_Young said:
I have no reason to believe that 2 Timothy 3:16 refers to the Bible itself. You first of all have to believe in the canon to imply it, so it is circular reasoning to invoke part of a text that was written before later parts of such a canon.

A good example of a contradiction is to look at the genealogies of Joseph. Unless you insert a rather torturous piece of commentary (which is not found within the Bible), you can’t get away from the fact that Matthew presents a different lineage from the one Luke presents.

If you look at the standard Christian methods for getting rid of contradictions, they all have the same thing in common. If you accept the presuppositions they put for ‘eliminating’ the contradictions, you have to twist reason so much that nothing in the world could be called a contradiction. This is why theologians generally accept that contradictions exist and scholarship is undertaken within this, rather than against it.
Click to expand...
The longer genealogy claims that the sections are divided into fourteens, but the last section as currently interpreted contains only thirteen generations.
A key to the problem here is the interpretation of the relationship between Joseph, as reported in the genealogy, and BVM.
It is not specified that he was her husband, but more precisely, he was her man, and that can be read as ‘FATHER’
This reading restores the number of generations to fourteen, and removes the conflict between the two genealogies.
Incidentally, it supports Rome’s tradition that BVM was by decent, of the House of Judah, thus avoiding special pleading, concerning implied adoption by Joseph.
 
As far as your question is concerned, Blue Serenity, I have already answered it.

You are simply stating by circular reasoning that the Bible is of more than human authorship. You assume everything that you are trying to demonstrate. In order for the Bible to be an objective authority, you need to be able to demonstrate that this authority can be proven without first assuming it. I could rephrase it yet again but you should be able to get the drift.

Any more than a secular interpretation of the Bible ultimately becomes an issue of faith, not of evidence. It is therefore a matter of belief, not of knowing.
 
David_Young said:
As far as your question is concerned, Blue Serenity, I have already answered it.

You are simply stating by circular reasoning that the Bible is of more than human authorship. You assume everything that you are trying to demonstrate. In order for the Bible to be an objective authority, you need to be able to demonstrate that this authority can be proven without first assuming it. I could rephrase it yet again but you should be able to get the drift.

Any more than a secular interpretation of the Bible ultimately becomes an issue of faith, not of evidence. It is therefore a matter of belief, not of knowing.
Click to expand...
You must not read your Bible very much, do you?
 
Now, do you have an actual point to make, Blue Serenity, or are you just copying cliches from off the side of a cereal packet?

I have read the entire Bible. Most people do when they do a degree in the subject.

There is no way to demonstrate any objective truth from the Bible by using the Bible alone. Bringing anything else in to attempt to demonstrate it means that your argument then rests on that particular something else. All you are doing is resorting to circular argument, as I have pointed out before.

The Bible does not even refer to itself, let alone demonstrate that it is objectively true in all that it says.

Simplistic sermon-bites do not contribute to any greater understanding or insight into the matter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top