Questions regarding Bible

Markx

Registered Senior Member
Some general questions regarding Bible. Please stick to the topic and no emotionalism.


1- Why would you believe in the bible?

2- Who were the authors of the Bible?

3-Why would you believe in those Auuthors?

4- Do we know all the Authors?


I would like to start from above 4 questions. You can add more.

Thank you
 
Originally posted by Markx
Some general questions regarding Bible. Please stick to the topic and no emotionalism.

1- Why would you believe in the bible?

2- Who were the authors of the Bible?

3-Why would you believe in those Auuthors?

4- Do we know all the Authors?

I would like to start from above 4 questions. You can add more.

Thank you

1- I'm gullible and brainwashed?

2- Lying liars.

3- (See answer #1)

4- Do we care?
 
Adding a question

5. What makes you think the bible is actually a book worthy of being used as a guideline for living a good life?
 
Re: Adding a question

Originally posted by Nehushta
5. What makes you think the bible is actually a book worthy of being used as a guideline for living a good life?

5- Because I don't have enough sense to use my own judgment and I don't take responsibility for my own happiness?
 
1- Why would you believe in the bible?

A: Because my parents told me it is 100% true and correct, and my parents would never lie to me. Except maybe for that Santa Claus myth...and the Easter bunny tale...and the tooth fairy story - but those don't count! They wouldn't lie to me about this!

2- Who were the authors of the Bible?

A: Well, as everyone knows, Moses wrote the first 5 books. It's kind of cool the way he even wrote about his own death and burial, huh? As for the other books, they usually list the author's name at the beginning, and I believe whatever I'm told when it comes to the bible.

3-Why would you believe in those Auuthors?

Because they were inspired by God, and God always tells the truth and so does anyone who is inspired by him! I know this because the bible tells me so. At least, I think it does - that's what everyone else tells me, anyway. It's not like I've actually read the bible for myself or anything. There's too many words there, and it's really confusing, and I'd rather be watching a soap opera or reality show on TV or reading a mindless romance novel or hanging out at the mall or something.

4- Do we know all the Authors?

That doesn't matter, because we know that they were all inspired by God, and God is not the author of confusion!

5. What makes you think the bible is actually a book worthy of being used as a guideline for living a good life?

Because that's what my pastor tells me. I actually have no idea what is in the bible except for the parts he talks about in church on Sunday morning, and he never brings up anything bad. See also the answers to questions 1, 3 and 4.
 
<i><b>
1- Why would you believe in the bible?
</b></i>
Ever believer believes at the core because of the holy Spirit. There is, however, a difference between beliving the bible to be physically inerrant or theologically inerrant.

<i><b>
2- Who were the authors of the Bible?
</b></i>
It is believed that Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, David, Solomon, Sirach, Paul, John, Luke and others wrote the books. In other places, the author is only known by tradition. Yet in most cases tradition is correct or at least a slight variation of is. For example, the author of Mathew's gospel may have been a pupil of Mathew and not Mathew himself. Likewise, signing in the name of the master was common.

<i><b>
4- Do we know all the Authors?
</b></i>
We don't know all of the authors.
 
okinrus,

Originally posted by okinrus
<i><b>
1- Why would you believe in the bible?
</b></i>
Ever believer believes at the core because of the holy Spirit. There is, however, a difference between beliving the bible to be physically inerrant or theologically inerrant.

Are you sure it's the holy spirit that causes you to interpret the bible the way you do? Then please explain the following:

Jesus said in John 6:51, I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

But in John 13:26 & 27, when someone actually takes the bread, it is Satan that enters into him!

Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon. And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly.

So instead of either Jesus or the holy spirit, Satan takes over when a person receives the bread given to him by Jesus. Why do you think this is?
 
<i><b>So instead of either Jesus or the holy spirit, Satan takes over when a person receives the bread given to him by Jesus. Why do you think this is?</b></i>
To recieve the Eucharist improperly is as Paul said in 1 Corintheans 15 is "rejecting our Lord" for all those who recieve the Lord in the bread are proclaiming the death of our Lord. Juda's rejection is hinted at the manna of Exodus becoming worms and maggots when it was kept for an extra day. Judas' rejected our Lord internally and externally. The emptyness of which is filled by Satan by Juda's own choice.
 
1- Why would you believe in the bible?

The Bible has some wonderful rules for living. It teaches moderation, and moderation works; it teaches helping others to being inner joy, and this too works. It has some historical value, and this interests me. The book of Acts inspires me, especially the stoning of Stephen. Though stoning were as common then as dying for causes, it gives me understand and appreciation for those believers.

2- Who were the authors of the Bible?

Much to do with the authors is disputable; therefore, the authors matter little to me. I have an educated mind, think for myself, and trust my intuition and intelligence to recognize reason.

3-Why would you believe in those Auuthors?

I believe in no author(s)! Everything I read, I approach with caution and some resistance, but then I tend to be rebellious.

4- Do we know all the Authors? Most of us do not know all the books! Therefore, my answer must be a qualified no.

>>>
Additional comments, which I offer because it seems the right thing to do. These are: A. I do not take every word in the Bible literally. B. I have a really big problem with most Christians' concept of hell, and of heaven.

Do I believe in life after death? You bet! How's that? maureecie
 
My questions

I have another thread called "A few questions for the Christians..." that talks about the inerrancy of the Bible a little bit, but goes more into a certain interpretaion of the Bible.

I also have a thread called "Miracles" which has a question for Christians, but no Christians have answered. I ask: If God was going to set up all these scientific processes, why does he go and break his own rules every now and then? Magick also claims to do supernatural things. Both magick and miracles claim to heal, to fortell future events, etc. Couldn't it be that all miracles and magick are just some form of undiscovered pschological science? I asked one Christian and she replied with, "I think that your way of thinking makes God seem less powerful; you say he couldn't raise the dead if he wanted to." If God truly did create this universe, trust me, there would be no lack of awe! It just doesn't make any sense that God would forsake the scientific systems and natural processes that he created.
 
Re: My questions

Originally posted by LostInThought7
I have another thread called "A few questions for the Christians..." that talks about the inerrancy of the Bible a little bit, but goes more into a certain interpretaion of the Bible.

I also have a thread called "Miracles" which has a question for Christians, but no Christians have answered. I ask: If God was going to set up all these scientific processes, why does he go and break his own rules every now and then? Magick also claims to do supernatural things. Both magick and miracles claim to heal, to fortell future events, etc. Couldn't it be that all miracles and magick are just some form of undiscovered pschological science? I asked one Christian and she replied with, "I think that your way of thinking makes God seem less powerful; you say he couldn't raise the dead if he wanted to." If God truly did create this universe, trust me, there would be no lack of awe! It just doesn't make any sense that God would forsake the scientific systems and natural processes that he created.

There is this newly found theory of neurotheology. It's been discussed around this forum. Basically, in neurotheology, it is an episode of the brain that elucidates a religious/spiritual experience and has absolutely nothing to do with faith.
 
The term "Christian" supposedly means "follower of Christ." I suggest awareness and discernment in qualifying individuals as "followers of Christ." Now, that I have clarified my thinking on the term Christian, I have something to say about miracles: I tend to agree that miracles were/are happenings that we are simply unable to explain in human terms. Secondly, being "raised from the dead," was defined and expanded by man. All anyone has to explain in words, an event, is his/her vocabulary.

What dies is our vehicle (body), when our breath, or our spirit leaves our body. Some do not agree with this, of course, and this is okay. Doubting is okay, but those who truly wish to know will seek, and those who seek will find.

I do not need someone else telling me what to believe, nor do you! Seek things out for yourself. Develop an educated perception. Remember, however, that I too am a work in process, and I too am learning, yet, no one can take away from me what I have truly come to know.

This I know: There is a God. In addition, I believe many things, but my search shall end only with my death.

I wish you well with your search. ~maureecie
 
Originally posted by okinrus
To recieve the Eucharist improperly is as Paul said in 1 Corintheans 15 is "rejecting our Lord" for all those who recieve the Lord in the bread are proclaiming the death of our Lord. Juda's rejection is hinted at the manna of Exodus becoming worms and maggots when it was kept for an extra day. Judas' rejected our Lord internally and externally. The emptyness of which is filled by Satan by Juda's own choice.

Could you please be a bit more specific - which verse(s) in 1 Corinthians 15 are you talking about? Where did Paul say that to receive the Eucharist improperly is "rejecting our Lord"? And what does it mean to receive the Eucharist properly? Again, chapter and verse, please.
 
<i><b>Could you please be a bit more specific - which verse(s) in 1 Corinthians 15 are you talking about? Where did Paul say that to receive the Eucharist improperly is "rejecting our Lord"? And what does it mean to receive the Eucharist properly? Again, chapter and verse, please</b></i>
My bad it's in 1 Corintheans 11. More precisely 1 Corinthians 11:27 I got confused because 1 Corintheans 15 is where Paul speaks of those not believing in the resurrection. The Eucharist is a latin term used by the Church after 200AD or so. Before that time, it is called the breaking bread or love feast. These may be the terms that your translation uses despite them being somewhat ambigious. I prefer to use unambigious terms even if some other christians would disagree on them. Nevertheless, the Eucharist is shown to be a very important part of early chrisitans. Infact, Stephen, in acts, is shown to devote himself to the breaking of the bread, which would not have been said unless if it was important.

Recieving the Eucharist improperly would be, as Paul said, not decerning the body of our Lord. Thus said, the Church also adds another requirement of not being in mortal sin. From what I can tell from early christian writings, christians would gather and confess their sins to each other before recieving the Eucharist. This is aligned with Jesus' statement in John, "I have given you a model to follow, so that I have done for you, you should also do" with respect to Jesus washing the feet of his deciples. To Judas, however, Jesus said "not all of you are clean". Judas did not withdrawl at that point and recieved our Lord uncleanly.
 
okinrus,

To Judas, however, Jesus said "not all of you are clean". Judas did not withdrawl at that point and recieved our Lord uncleanly.

This hardly seems fair to Judas - Jesus himself had declared that what was about to happen must happen. Jesus even went so far as to appoint Judas to do the job of betraying him and told him to do it quickly. It was kind of a "damned if you do, and damned if you don't" proposition for poor Judas, don't you think?

I might also point out that earlier in the story, Jesus had even called Peter "Satan" for his refusal to accept that Jesus must suffer and die. It seems to me that no one really had any choice in the matter.
 
I might also point out that earlier in the story, Jesus had even called Peter "Satan" for his refusal to accept that Jesus must suffer and die.
Yes, Peter's unbelief began by paradoxically believing that Jesus would live forever. He is believing in his own vision of the messiah and then when Jesus says that he must die everything crumbles down for Peter. Also, Jesus is not calling Peter Satan but Satan himself Satan. He rebukes Satan in this way because it wasn't his time yet. Though he does allow Satan to attack Peter when it is beneficial to God's will.

It seems to me that no one really had any choice in the matter.
No, Judas had a choice but he made it well before the last supper. In the bread scene of John's gospel at the end most of the people leave Jesus however Judas remained. It is difficult to know why Judas remained but I suspect that he was stealing from the collective money store and that is why he stayed with the disciples. This bitter hatred is manifested when Mary Magdalene pours out the oil on Jesus' feet and Judas says that she should have spent the money on the poor. In other words, she should have given the money to Jesus so that he could steal it. Since he had no will to do good, he was eventually possessed by Satan.
 
My my! Supositions seem to be on the rise. I do agree, however, that Jesus was not calling Peter Satan, but --based upon the whole of the gospels, Acts, and the Pauline Epistles, it seems clear that these people believed that man has two natures, the old and the new. The old nature is more easily affected by Satan, and the new, tends to be Christlike. Of course, there are many variables, and some growth is necessary to be Christlike.

Therefore, if we assume that Satan is the perpetrator of evil, when Christ saw evil, he recognized it as Satan's folly. I believe you were referring to Matthew 16:23, "...Get thee behind me Satan: thour art an offence unto me; for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men." It seems obvious that Jesus Christ was not addressing Peter, but the argument of Satan, not dissimilar to Jesus in the wilderness, and his conversations with Satan there.
 
Holy Cow!

Guys, you all forgot my questions and started a strange conversation. Well, the main reason of my inquiry was to understand why a person from another religion would believe in a Bible. What makes Bible so Special? Since it was written by men in different times and by multiple men and for some books are written by unknown authors. What was the criteria and how authentic were those writers?

What if some one come up and write their own book of Bible? what is there to stop him/them? isn't what happend before? I mean those men just said they got a Holy Ghost in them and it inspired them. I hope you all understand what I am asking.
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LostInThought7 said:

"I have another thread ..." that talks about the inerrancy of the Bible a little bit, but goes more into a certain interpretaion of the Bible."

Yo! ...........Comments regarding "...the inerrancy of the Bible were posted by the undersigned.//

...AND, Lost also said: "I also have a thread called "Miracles" which has a question for Christians, but no Christians have answered."

...TO DETERMINE WHETHER WE ARE IN AGREEMENT as to what a "Christian" might be, I attempted to clarify.

<> FOLLOWING are a couple of replies to another post:

2- Who were the authors of the Bible?

Much to do with the authors is disputable; therefore, the authors matter little to me. I have an educated mind, think for myself, and trust my intuition and intelligence to recognize reason.

3-Why would you believe in those Authors?

I believe in no author(s)! Everything I read, I approach with caution and some resistance, but then I tend to be rebellious.

4- Do we know all the Authors?

Most of us do not know all the books; therefore, my answer must be a qualified no.
 
Well, the main reason of my inquiry was to understand why a person from another religion would believe in a Bible. What makes Bible so Special? Since it was written by men in different times and by multiple men and for some books are written by unknown authors. What was the criteria and how authentic were those writers?
I think your sort of missing something. Christians do not believe in the bible but in Jesus. It is, however, true that christians believe that the bible is theologically valid and truthful but it is second to God and the teachings of the apostles. An account given by Papias of the gospel of Mark "And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements" We only have a fragment of Papias writing though.

People from another religion would believe in the bible if they are convinced that it teaches the truth and believing is beneficial to them. The main two principles of christianity are love your God with all your heart, mind and soul and love your neighbor as yourself. Once someone is convinced of those two, he or she should be able to convince themselves of the teachings of the church. A good example is Justin. He tells his conversion as follows <a href="http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-48.htm#P4043_787325re">here</a>

The authors of the bible were well respected and their quotes are found in the father's of the church who knew the disciples. Here's what Polycarp, who died for Christ, said of Paul, "These things, brethren, I write to you concerning righteousness, not because I take anything upon myself, but because ye have invited me to do so. For neither I, nor any other such one, can come up to the wisdom21 of the blessed and glorified Paul. He, when among you, accurately and stedfastly taught the word of truth in the presence of those who were then alive. And when absent from you, he wrote you a letter,22 which, if you carefully study, you will find to be the means of building you up in that faith which has been given you, and which, being followed by hope, and preceded by love towards God, and Christ, and our neighbour, "is the mother of us all."23 For if any one be inwardly possessed of these graces, he hath fulfilled the command of righteousness, since he that hath love is far from all sin."



What if some one come up and write their own book of Bible? what is there to stop him/them? isn't what happend before?
The books of the bible were collected in the canon because these authors had proven themselves and were apostles. We don't expect that there will be any new revelation because our Lord said at the last supper, "There is no greater love than this." Thus any other revelation would be expounding on truths that are already contained in the bible.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top