Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Why Do You Believe In The God Of The Bible?


  • Please log in to reply
35 replies to this topic

#1 mordecai

mordecai

    Pi

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 675 posts

Posted 18 May 2004 - 08:54 PM

Ok I want to get at the fundamental reasons why people believe what they do. But I'd like people to acknowledge and preconcieved biases they bring to their belief (i.e. belief in a higher power/God with or without the bible) or any preconception or personal that would highly influence why you believe the bible is the revelation from the real god of reality and why the bible is objective truth for everyone on earth regardless of whether or not someone believes it. How do you know your the description of the God in the bible is an accurate description of the real god?

I'm not looking for pat answers, so if you are going to say "because the bible says so" please don't respond. I'm hoping to generate LOTS of big posts to gain insight into other peoples minds and how they make the jumps to the conclusions they do. When it comes right down to it what are the sole arguments that persuaded you, inside and outside the bible?

#2 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 18 May 2004 - 09:10 PM

The Biblical record of man, his nature and character, rings true to me (and is far more honest than interpretations given by man himself).

The historical record of Scripture rings true to me, and corroborates its claims.

The prophetic dimension of Scripture is to me evidence of Divine inspiration.

Then there's the little flagellate motor. :coffee:

I don't think any of these require any preconceptions. :popcorn:
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#3 Amy Parkin

Amy Parkin

    Tau

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,810 posts

Posted 18 May 2004 - 09:30 PM

Many of the events prophecied have come to pass. Although many claim that many were written after the events happened, once the Greek translation was made this argument became invalid because the propecies were there and many had not come to pass at that stage.

Archaeological evidence supports the historical events recorded in the Bible. The Dead Sea Scrolls, the Valley of Bones etc.

No chemical reaction or anything would have created the earth. It just seems so illogical to me. Look at the perfect balance of gases in the atmosphere, the detail and thought that has gone into the design of every living thing... Only God could have created such a wonderful world.

Geologic evidence is proof too. The tectonic plates are in exactly the right places for the earthquake at Jesus' return - they are all connected and there is a fault line running along the west bank of Israel.

Personally, I need no more evidence than this to reassure myself that the God of the Bible is and accurate description of the real God. Not sure if this is what you wanted at all, but oh well...
"Trust in the LORD with all your heart,
and do not lean on your own understanding.
In all your ways acknowledge Him,
and He will make straight your paths."


--Proverbs 3:5-6

#4 Keturah

Keturah

    Rho

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,993 posts

Posted 18 May 2004 - 11:12 PM

Geologic evidence is proof too.  The tectonic plates are in exactly the right places for the earthquake at Jesus' return - they are all connected and there is a fault line running along the west bank of Israel.


I know it is way :popcorn: but I was wondering what people thought about this prophecied "earthquake". Will it be a literal earthquake? I always thought so but then Fort has his French Revolution earthquake type of thing...

Sorry, back on topic.

#5 Tinkerbell

Tinkerbell

    Tau

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,279 posts

Posted 18 May 2004 - 11:23 PM

i think there's evidence in the world around us - evidence in the design of things we see and encounter. There are some things that are far too complex to have evolved (the human brain, eye etc) and some things far too beautiful to have come about by chance. Also the creation of the world itself!! If conditions had been even very slightly different at the formation of the earth life could not have ever been formed - so is it just chance that things happen to be in exact balance for life to form? i think not!!

Also the way that all life forms seem to work together in harmony with one another to create balance in the world (eg, plants need CO2 to live and produce O2 as a waste product but humans need O2 to live and produce CO2 as a waste product) again chance or wonderfully designed? in my mind there's no question that this is the design of a wonderful, loving God!!

And don't even get me started on all the prophecies and archaeological evidence coz i could be here all day...
I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me - Philippians 4v13

Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom - Luke 12v32

we should respect others for how they're different from us, not how they're similar - Jim Henson

#6 mordecai

mordecai

    Pi

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 675 posts

Posted 19 May 2004 - 02:52 AM

So would all of you say that your reasons you have given are because they are aesthetically pleasing to you? (rather then going through a process of processing and weighing evidence from all sides?) How many of you have read atheist and theist and scientific literature from both sides? Or do you find yourself avoiding evidence and arguments by discounting them before you even read them? Or do you "make yourself immune" by deciding before you read something what you believe and thats that?

#7 Flappie

Flappie

    Psi

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,730 posts

Posted 19 May 2004 - 08:07 AM

So would all of you say that your reasons you have given are because they are aesthetically pleasing to you?

Nope.

(rather then going through a process of processing and weighing evidence from all sides?)

Done that.

How many of you have read atheist and theist and scientific literature from both sides?

Done that as well.

Or do you find yourself avoiding evidence and arguments by discounting them before you even read them?

Depends if I find it relevant or interesting.

Or do you "make yourself immune" by deciding before you read something what you believe and thats that?

Nope.
"I am Flappicus!"
"The first condition of immortality is death."
Broeders in Christus

#8 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 19 May 2004 - 08:12 AM

So would all of you say that your reasons you have given are because they are aesthetically pleasing to you? (rather then going through a process of processing and weighing evidence from all sides?)

I don't find the description of man and his nature and character in the Bible to be 'aesthetically pleasing'. Nor do I find prophecy 'aesthetically pleasing'. What I did was this:

...going through a process of processing and weighing evidence from all sides.


That's what I did.

How many of you have read atheist and theist and scientific literature from both sides?


I spent over a year on the most hardcore atheist board I could find. I answered all questions aimed at me, and defended my faith consistently. I earned their respect. Many Christians there did not. I visit skeptic and atheist sites and archives regularly, to confront myself with the best they have to offer. I'm still a Christian. :coffee:

Or do you find yourself avoiding evidence and arguments by discounting them before you even read them?


Actually I have a tendency to seek them out. Is that ok? :popcorn:

Or do you "make yourself immune" by deciding before you read something what you believe and thats that?


No, my beliefs have changed as a result of reading atheist literature. :oldie:
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#9 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 19 May 2004 - 08:13 AM

Mordecai, perhaps you can explain to us why the only motivation for service appears to you to be violence? :popcorn:
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#10 Tinkerbell

Tinkerbell

    Tau

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,279 posts

Posted 19 May 2004 - 12:17 PM

So would all of you say that your reasons you have given are because they are aesthetically pleasing to you? (rather then going through a process of processing and weighing evidence from all sides?) How many of you have read atheist and theist and scientific literature from both sides? Or do you find yourself avoiding evidence and arguments by discounting them before you even read them? Or do you "make yourself immune" by deciding before you read something what you believe and thats that?

I studied Theology at A-level for 2 years, and part of the course was all about philosophy of religion. This included questions like the original question you asked, but it also included reading articles that challenge belief (things that were by people who held a different faith or scientific works by atheists) I found that reading this sort of material has helped me to understand where people are coming from with their beliefs but it also made me think more carefully about why i believe what i do. I have certainly found that deliberately placing myself in situations where my faith is being challenged (as i knew it would be with my A-level course) has helped me a great deal to think more carefully about my beliefs and the ways i can 'defend' them or put them across to other people. I think if you deliverately avoid people challenging your faith then your faith can never be as strong as it truly could be. That's just my opinion though!!
I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me - Philippians 4v13

Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom - Luke 12v32

we should respect others for how they're different from us, not how they're similar - Jim Henson

#11 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 19 May 2004 - 12:20 PM

Good one Tinkerbell. I took two years of philosophy, including 'Philoshopy of Religion', 'Moral Philosophy' and 'Philosophy and Ethics'. It was amazing to see how many students were there simply because they were 'looking for answers'.

Of course, philosophy had no answers, so they invariably found themselves totally shredded by our lecturer in our tutes. :coffee:
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#12 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 19 May 2004 - 12:42 PM

Well I think this one backfired mordecai, what's your next idea? :popcorn:
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#13 mordecai

mordecai

    Pi

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 675 posts

Posted 19 May 2004 - 07:28 PM

Fort,

Nah... I just wanted to see if anyone has gone through those stages. My intention is not: "...the only motivation for service appears to you to be violence?"

I'm still looking for well reasoned answers even though it may appear I'm playing "hard ball" from a staunch atheist stance or trying to pigeonhole others.

#14 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 19 May 2004 - 08:01 PM

Fort,

Nah... I just wanted to see if anyone has gone through those stages. My intention is not: "...the only motivation for service appears to you to be violence?"

In another thread, you went on and on about how people only served God out of fear that He would punish them if they didn't. I found it interesting that you couldn't seem to understand that some people might serve out of love.

I'm still looking for well reasoned answers even though it may appear I'm playing "hard ball" from a staunch atheist stance or trying to pigeonhole others.


Fair enough. I hope our answers are sufficiently 'well reasoned'. :popcorn:
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#15 wizduels

wizduels
  • Members
  • 9 posts

Posted 10 April 2006 - 04:02 AM

sooner or later in life a person begins to ask questions concerning the following four areas:
1. origins - where did i come from? where did all things come from?
2. meaning - why is life meaningfull? why is anything meaningfull? what gives my life meaning?
3. morality - what is right and what is wrong? how do i know for sure?
4. destiny - is there anything after death? how do i know?

additionally, the answers that people seek are not usually satisfactory unless those answers meet the following three general criteria:
1. logical consistency - is the answer logically consistent? does it make sense?
2. emperically evident - do i see these answers demonstrated in the real world?
3. experiencially relavent - do the answers directly relate to experiences in my own life?

speaking for myself, i have found my answers to these questions in the message of the bible and in the person of christ all of which have met the above criteria for me. i have found my peace, my rest, my contentment, and my joy. the older we grow, the more it takes to fill our hearts with wonder. my sense of wonder is renewed each day because the god of the bible is only thing big enough to continue to fill your heart with wonder for all of life and eternity beyond. that is why i believe.

#16 Simpleton

Simpleton

    Rho

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,189 posts

Posted 10 April 2006 - 03:13 PM

People believe in God because of personal experience. They actually experience God, know him, and are taught by him.

God manifests himself to us (Jn. 14:21). He lives in us (Jn 14:23, 2 Cor. 6:16).

#17 He-man

He-man

    Rho

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,716 posts

Posted 11 April 2006 - 02:01 AM

So would all of you say that your reasons you have given are because they are aesthetically pleasing to you? (rather then going through a process of processing and weighing evidence from all sides?) How many of you have read atheist and theist and scientific literature from both sides? Or do you find yourself avoiding evidence and arguments by discounting them before you even read them? Or do you "make yourself immune" by deciding before you read something what you believe and thats that?

Worked and debated daily with a JW, Athiest, Catholic, Methodist for more that 3 years. The material I read covers all the subjects listed plus some not listed. The Systematic Theology of Paul Tillich, Man and the Spirit, Man and the Universe;" Jews, God, and History", Philosophy of Will Durant, and Gibbon's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Without Marx or Jesus, Paradise Lost by Milton, etc.

Have you read Elpis Isreal by John Thomas?? or Nazareth Revisited??

Evidence?? Have you read the Bible??? What more could you want??? It repeatedly says the same thing as you do your daily readings, like for instance the story of "the Red Sea", Sodom, and Gomorrah, the promises to us for an inheritance, the scientific evidence of creation, just look through a microscope and see the nucleus of an Atom surrounded by Protons and Neutrons . Look at the Sky, the Stars, and all His Majestic wonders He has given us.

Look at your Living Body and the complexity of the inner self. Look at yourself and you will see God present.

Edited by He-man, 11 April 2006 - 02:05 AM.

He-man Called "THE SINGER"
1 Chr 25:5 King's seerer in the matters of God
1 Chr XV 16-22 "The Vocal & Instrumental Music of the Temple Service in the Reign of David"

#18 Matt Smith

Matt Smith

    Upsilon

  • Forum Manager
  • 4,619 posts

Posted 12 April 2006 - 04:21 PM


So would all of you say that your reasons you have given are because they are aesthetically pleasing to you? (rather then going through a process of processing and weighing evidence from all sides?) How many of you have read atheist and theist and scientific literature from both sides? Or do you find yourself avoiding evidence and arguments by discounting them before you even read them? Or do you "make yourself immune" by deciding before you read something what you believe and thats that?

Worked and debated daily with a JW, Athiest, Catholic, Methodist for more that 3 years. The material I read covers all the subjects listed plus some not listed. The Systematic Theology of Paul Tillich, Man and the Spirit, Man and the Universe;" Jews, God, and History", Philosophy of Will Durant, and Gibbon's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Without Marx or Jesus, Paradise Lost by Milton, etc.

Just being pedantic, but William Shirer wrote "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich", while Gibbon wrote "The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire"... :bow:
Matt Smith
Arizona Christadelphians

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

#19 Asyncritus

Asyncritus

    Chi

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,091 posts

Posted 13 May 2006 - 08:23 AM

Quite apart from anything else, acquiring scientific (specifically biochemical) knowledge at degree level showed me just how impossible it is to explain the complex phenomena present in the world without a Designer. I was particularly stunned by the Krebs citric acid cycle and the properties of enzymes.

How thinking that

a. such an amazingly complex piece of intelligent putting together of chemicals which

b. were themselves amazingly complex and

c. which could not be synthesised without the information provided by that even more incredibly complex chemical DNA

could possible arise by chance, is beyond me.

Then I began to find out about chlorophyll and haemoglobin, magnificently complicated, differing in only one atom at their cores, and yet having such unbelievably different functions and properties, being totally responsible for the continued existence of higher life on this planet: and I marvelled, and waited for an 'explanation'. None was forthcoming, or could forthcome. So what about God? Nothing else could explain those marvels.

Recently, I've been reading 'Darwin's Black Box,' by Behe(?) and have been stunned again by the unbelievable way a single cilium and flagellum differ, and are each individually constructed. Amazing is the only way I can describe it, and even that is hopelessly inadequate description.

I also dipped into Paley's 'Natural Theology' - irrefutable and simple logic. Have a look sometime and let me know how you get on, Mordecai.
God, be merciful to me
The Sinner

#20 philonetwenty

philonetwenty

    Rho

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,029 posts

Posted 14 August 2006 - 08:58 PM

Hey Mordecai!

I know for SURE that God is God.

Why? Many reasons.
"We do not act as fools, O Greeks, nor utter idle tales, when we announce that God was born in the form of a man." Tatian the Syrian, Oration Against the Greeks, 21 (c. A.D. 175).

"Invisible Pink Unicorns are beings of great spiritual power. We know this because they are capable of being invisible and pink at the same time. Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them." -- Steve Eley

"A hot sun had blazed upon the spot." Stephen Crane The Red Badge of Courage

#21 Chokmah

Chokmah

    Zeta

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 60 posts

Posted 17 August 2006 - 11:10 PM

Modercai,

I believe in G-d because of His Holy Scriptures. I believe that He exists because everything in this world was created by a super-intelligent and wise being. This super-being left his handwriting in the Holy Scriptures which the Hebrews (Jews) were the guardians. G-d is the greatest mathematician and no one can even come close to Him. I believe that the key to unlock G-d's Holy Scriptures is through mathematics, not through emotional thinking or instincts. For thousands of years since the time of ancient Egypt, mankind thought the Earth was flat, the Greeks did not help the Western civilizations either because they bought into the Egyptians' views and helped to spread this thought out to the Western Civilizations. And in the Dark Ages, if you disagree with this view, you would have been put to death. How ridiculous is this? Just because someone said that the Earth was flat, and because everyone bought into it does not prove it to be correct. Unless, there are facts to support the view or hypothesis, then one should not blindly buy into it. Not even if the Pope proclaims it that this the "TRUTH". It took many thousands of years of mankind history before man decided to wake up from his ignorance and accept that the Earth is round and that the Earth is not the center of the universe and that the Pope was wrong. The Catholic Church eventually withdrew the previous Pope statement when a new Pope made a new proclamation that the Earth was indeed round and the Sun was the center of the universe.

Mathematics is the foundation of G-d's creation. This is G-d's language. And I see this in his Holy Scriptures.
And everything we have today in our world is also built on mathematics. Without mathematics the foundation of the universe and the world couldn't exist.

Note: My Bible does not consist of 66 books. Just because the Catholic Church and their scholars put the modern Bible together and made decisions of which books to be accepted or rejected in the New Testament does not prove to me that the "Bible" consists of 66 books. Why should anyone accept this blindly? This is the reason why Christedom is astray: 66 books and they call this the Holy Bible. My "Bible" consists of 45 books.
So teach us to number our days, so that we may bring a heart of wisdom. (Psalm 90:12)

#22 Matt Smith

Matt Smith

    Upsilon

  • Forum Manager
  • 4,619 posts

Posted 17 August 2006 - 11:12 PM

Care to list the books of your Bible?
Matt Smith
Arizona Christadelphians

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

#23 Chokmah

Chokmah

    Zeta

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 60 posts

Posted 18 August 2006 - 12:30 AM

Care to list the books of your Bible?

The 39 books of the Hebrew TANAKH:

TORAH
1. Genesis
2. Exodus
3. Leviticus
4. Numbers
5. Deuteronomy

NEVI'IM
6. Joshua
7. Judges
8. I Samuel
9. II Samuel
10. I Kings
11. II Kings
12. Isaiah
13. Jeremiah
14. Ezekiel
15. Hosea
16. Joel
17. Amos
18. Obadiah
19. Jonah
20. Micah
21. Nahum
22. Habakkuk
23. Zephaniah
24. Haggai
25. Zechariah
26. Malachi

KETHUVIM
27. Psalms
28. Proverbs
29. Job
30. The Songs of Songs
31. Ruth
32. Lamentations
33. Ecclesiastes
34. Esther
35. Daniel
36. Ezra
37. Nehemiah
38. I Chronicles
39. II Chronicles

For the New Testament, I only accept these 5 books:

40. Matthew
41. Mark
42. Luke
43. John
44. Acts
45. Revelation

Why do I reject the epistles written by the Apostles?
Answer: because I found tainting in the epistles. That is, I found out that verses or words have been added or modified to justify the existence of a doctrine. For example, Trinity, Pre-Existence of Christ and His Nature, the devil, and so on. And the second reason is how do I know that these epistles have not been tainted completely to suit a belief system. I don't have the Holy Spirit power to make this judgment. The apostles and their disciples who had the Holy Spirit power were not alive to proofread the epistles nor to discuss which books in the New Testament are AUTHENTIC.

I even have a hard time to accept the gospel of Matthew. My reason is that I found one word in the Gospel of Matthew which has been tainted. The original gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew/Aramaic, it was latter translated into Greek. Here lies the problem, the original gospel of Matthew in Hebrew had been lost, and the only copy which survived are copies of the gospel translated into Greek. And there are different copies of the gospel of Matthew and any book of the gospel. How convenient is this to sell a belief system? The bells goes off in my head, what else could have been tainted in the gospel of Matthew? Which raises question to the gospel of Luke which is based on the gospel of Matthew. You start to see the dilemma. Therefore, I reject all the epistles and I only accept the words of my master Yeshua (Gr. Jesus) which has been recorded in these 5 books of the New Testament.

Alright, you may use the same argument on the TANAKH (Old Testament). But remember that the Hebrews(Jews) were the guardians of the Holy Scriptures of G-d. And if anyone of them made a mistake in copying these Holy Scriptures they had to start over again. Imperfection and errors were not allowed. Death penalty was the punishment for this offence.

As you can see, the was too much liberty when it comes to the books of the New Testament. It was a free for all. The first Catholics founders decided among themselves which books should be included in the New Testament. At first, some of these scholars rejected the Old Testament. But someone realized that the Old Testament is required because YESHUA(Gr. Jesus) was a JEW, and Christianity cannot exist without the TANAKH. Thus, the Old Testament was included, but they modified the order of the books. This is why Christedom is astray because of these tainted books which makes up the Bible.

:smited:
Here's my challenge to any living Christian, can you prove your beliefs or doctrines only from these 45 books?
So teach us to number our days, so that we may bring a heart of wisdom. (Psalm 90:12)

#24 John the Bearded

John the Bearded

    Lambda

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPip
  • 296 posts

Posted 18 August 2006 - 11:45 AM

Slightly off topic - Apostles and Epistles
I was interested to see that you don't accept as scripture any of the epistles. This interests me, as I have spent considerable time looking at the Apostle Paul in particular. The posting here in the Islam section of the armoury is about whether one can take Paul's writings to be Scripture or not. The paper also contains some comments on the Apostle Peter.

I would have thought that it was difficult to reject the Epistles of Peter and John as the writers are clearly the close apostles of Jesus. Peter, in particular, carried out many miracles (signs as required in Deuteronomy 18) and his epistles contain fulfilled prophecy (esp 2 Peter 3).

As my posting in the armoury points out, there is excellent witness that Paul also performed miracles, including an eyewitness account of an occasion where he raised the dead. Some of Paul's epistles also contain fulfilled prophecy.

I am a little surprised by your claim that the epistles teach: "Trinity, Pre-Existence of Christ and His Nature, the devil". I haven't found any of these in the epistles at all. One of the surprising and interesting points about the Bible is the harmony of the teaching in it; the book of Genesis teaches the same theology as the Gospels or the Epistles.

The language of Matthew
I am interested in your reasons for believing that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew/Aramaic. This has been repeated by a number of people posting in various areas of BTDF and seems to be widely believed in the world in general. However, I have only ever heard of one piece of evidence which supports the idea that it was written in Hebrew, which is the words of Papias:

"Matthew wrote the logia [words] in Hebrew"

This short statement may not mean the Gospel; the word logia is used rather than the word evangelion which is what one would expect if the Gospel of Matthew was intended. Possibly Matthew made notes in Hebrew of the sayings of Jesus which were then incorporated into his Gospel in translation. Possibly Papias got it wrong.

The problem is that when looking for the usual indicators of original language (what I like to call linguistic fossils) one comes up with the conclusion that the narrative of Matthew was originally composed in Greek. For example consider the words of Jesus from the cross:-

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? (Matthew 27:46)

Matthew has to translate the Aramaic of Jesus' saying into Greek for his readers. This would be an unlikely thing in a book written in Aramaic or even in Hebrew.

Some, though not all, of the sayings of Jesus in Matthew (and in the other Gospels for that matter) show signs of having been composed in Hebrew/Aramaic. This is what one would expect for someone who was teaching in a place where most people were at least bilingual (Greek/Aramaic) and often trilingual (Greek/Aramaic/Hebrew). Some part of Jesus' sayings are likely to have been delivered in Aramaic and then translated. However, this is not a problem for inspiration, as the Apostles were given the Holy Spirit to help them to deliver teaching from God and to remember the sayings and actions of Jesus.

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. (John 14:26)

The church did select the New Testament documents, but it did so on the basis that these documents were inspired by God. The selection was carried out in the first century AD, and every document we have froim the period supposes that the list we now have went back to the apostles (even the marcionite lists which reject part of the New Testament).

I likewise (and the Christadelphian community in general) accept the 66 books of the Bible because of evidence that they are inspired, and not because of the tradition of churches.

Yours

John the Bearded

Edited by John the Bearded, 18 August 2006 - 11:47 AM.


#25 Chokmah

Chokmah

    Zeta

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 60 posts

Posted 18 August 2006 - 02:20 PM

Slightly off topic - Apostles and Epistles

I likewise (and the Christadelphian community in general) accept the 66 books of the Bible because of evidence that they are inspired, and not because of the tradition of churches.

Yours

John the Bearded

John, you claim to have evidence that the epistles are inspired. How do you know, can you prove it? I am not denying whether the epistles were written by the apostles or not. I am not denying the authenticity of the authors of the epistles. The point I am making is that there were no standards no rigid rules applied to copy the text of the New Testament books. Copies of these epistles were circulated among the brotherhood, how do you guarantee that as these copies get copied don't get added verses or words altered to suit a doctrine? It is like telling a story to a person and this person tell this same story to another person which in turn does the same by telling the story to another person. It has been proven that once a story gets passed around, the original story gets modified and only the intention of the message gets delivered. This is the problem with the New Testament, there were no rigid standards to make sure that these copy of the originals were preserved from corruption or tainting. I will write more about this issue in my blog in a future time. All I ask you to keep an open mind and a willing heart to learn.
So teach us to number our days, so that we may bring a heart of wisdom. (Psalm 90:12)

#26 Chokmah

Chokmah

    Zeta

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 60 posts

Posted 18 August 2006 - 02:59 PM

This is starting to get off topic. This is not my intention. I will limit my posts to Chokmah's blog this way I won't need to repeat myself in different sections of this forum.
So teach us to number our days, so that we may bring a heart of wisdom. (Psalm 90:12)

#27 Flappie

Flappie

    Psi

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,730 posts

Posted 18 August 2006 - 03:37 PM

That's not fair. It's not like there's only one copy now which is a copy of a copy of a copy etc. But we have thousands of copies, from varying places, which spread out before the RCC existed.

The Greek text used for the AV is dodgy in places, agreed, but Erasmus only had access to a limited amount of documents, a lot of improvement has been made since then. The most obvious taint is 1 John 5:7, but that has been proven a fraud even by avid trinitarians quite a while ago.

The text we have now is trustworthy because all those documents are compared. If they all agree on things, it's bound to be the original. Most Bibles, or Greek NT's will provide the alternative texts if there's doubt. So there's no reason to chuck them all because they're nothing like the original.

Besides, why accept the gospels and Revelation, how do you know they're more accurately copied than the epistles?

Edited by Flappie, 18 August 2006 - 03:40 PM.

"I am Flappicus!"
"The first condition of immortality is death."
Broeders in Christus

#28 Chokmah

Chokmah

    Zeta

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 60 posts

Posted 18 August 2006 - 04:13 PM

Besides, why accept the gospels and Revelation, how do you know they're more accurately copied than the epistles?

Flappie, these are good questions. I will answer them in time in my blog. This way it saves me time from repeating myself in different sections of this forum.

All I am asking to anyone who is willing to learn to keep an open mind and a willing heart. I will be presenting some ideas or posing questions which will be very disturbing to your belief system. If this disturbs you, you have a choice to ignore it. There is a lot of new unexplored territory in the Bible which most people have no idea it exists. If you are willing to learn, come and walk into the journey, but leave behind all your preconceived ideas.
So teach us to number our days, so that we may bring a heart of wisdom. (Psalm 90:12)

#29 Steven

Steven

    Upsilon

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,365 posts

Posted 18 August 2006 - 08:25 PM


Besides, why accept the gospels and Revelation, how do you know they're more accurately copied than the epistles?

Flappie, these are good questions. I will answer them in time in my blog. This way it saves me time from repeating myself in different sections of this forum.

All I am asking to anyone who is willing to learn to keep an open mind and a willing heart. I will be presenting some ideas or posing questions which will be very disturbing to your belief system. If this disturbs you, you have a choice to ignore it. There is a lot of new unexplored territory in the Bible which most people have no idea it exists. If you are willing to learn, come and walk into the journey, but leave behind all your preconceived ideas.


Chokmah
On your blog will you answer questions? Or are you just here to proselytize for Judaism? :smited:
S

#30 Steven

Steven

    Upsilon

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,365 posts

Posted 18 August 2006 - 08:33 PM

Chokmah
Interesting. Is there anyone else in the world who shares your belief position?

BTW - And as for finding Matthew "tainted" because it is translated from Greek... there is not a single tenured classics scholar anywhere in the world who believes that Matthew is translated from Greek. That's about as likely as Shakespeare having originally written Hamlet in Latin. As Matthew's "which translated is" when he uses an Aramaic term.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users