How true is the Bible?

[Akar]

You can bank on it being true.

Well, not literally. That would be usury.

[wanderwegger]

wanderwegger,

When Jesus Christ states that He and the Father are One is only one of many. " Before Moses was I AM, " is another. When speaking to the Samaritan woman at the well Jesus told her that He was the One that her religion believed would come. When He said that " He is the Way, the Truth and the Life, " He was declaring His Divinity. Oh there are many others far too much for your brain to take in but then the Bible tells plainly of people like you so there's no disputing that. As for the Bible, my favourite is the KJV for it's the one that led me to my conversion. Is it true? You can bank on it being true.

Not where do you see it implied. Where does it say it? Do the many translation mistakes in the KJV not bother you since you are an absolutist on it being the word of God?

Knowing that you are relying on a human translated copy of the word which isn't the real word, do you not fear for your soul?

[basics]

Not where do you see it implied. Where does it say it? Do the many translation mistakes in the KJV not bother you since you are an absolutist on it being the word of God?
Knowing that you are relying on a human translated copy of the word which isn't the real word, do you not fear for your soul?

wanderwegger,

Is the translation that Jesus Christ came into the world, was crucified and rose again wrong? Is the translation that He did so for sinners wrong? That someday He will return to judge all things after separating His elect from all unbelievers taking believers into heaven and the other hell, is that a false interpretation? That you who was a seminary expert does not know where Jesus spoke the words in my post kinda gives the impression that it was a useless seminary you attended. You give the game away every time you write.

[conon394]

Is the translation that Jesus Christ came into the world, was crucified and rose again wrong?

The KJV well yes it has a fair number of faults to matter how pretty it sounds to some. But the outline of the story you mean sure its in the Bible. But the rising and miraculous events are surprising lacking from any other source. The ancient was full of both a lot people who did not believe in one true to the exclusion of all other and also quite willing to except gods might well intercede on earth directly. Even non converts almost certainly remark on such impressive events.

[basics]

conon394,

To you and many others the Bible is just the dead letter of Scripture, why? Because as Peter points out any understanding of it comes from the Holy Spirit of God Who leads His elect into all truth. But then I suppose you don't believe there is a Holy Spirit meaning there is a great wall, your hardened heart, that separates me from you. So, for me the Bible is true but to you it is not and nothing short of God changing that as He did me, your position will never change until that is when Jesus comes back and you have to confess on bended knee that He is Lord and God.

[Common Soldier]

Not where do you see it implied. Where does it say it?

John 10:30 Jesus says "I and the Father are one" That is prerty clear. And in 10:31 the Jews tried to Jesus, since he was claiming. If you are trying to clain it is due to some mistranslation, forget it. John 17:22 Jesus with respect to God the Father "we are one'. In John 16 Jesus says "all that the Father is mine". John 17:5 Jesus ask God to "glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began". I am sorry, it does get much clearer than that, even the Jews cleaely understood Jesus was claiming to be God.


Where does Jesus in the bible claim not to be God, where he says he is only a man, and ask is followers not to worship him?

Knowing that you are relying on a human translated copy of the word which isn't the real word, do you not fear for your soul?

That is Muslim logic and that means that any one who does not know classicsal Arabic as their native tongue, which is most Muslims, can't know the Koran, and so must fear for their soul. Even a Muslim who knows.classicsl Arabic, but has to mentally translate it in his head to a language he normally speaks, can't know thr Koran. So you must be terrified.

But a translation does not have perfect, merely good enough. From thr words Jesus said, and the reaction of the Jews to it, and the other things Jesus said, there is little doubt of what was meant. Even when people the same language, there is ways the possibility people can interpret the same words differently and have a different understanding. So according to you, nobody can communicatr with each other, since there is always the potential for misunderstanding.

[Adamat]

John 10:30 Jesus says "I and the Father are one" That is prerty clear. And in 10:31 the Jews tried to Jesus, since he was claiming. If you are trying to clain it is due to some mistranslation, forget it. John 17:22 Jesus with respect to God the Father "we are one'. In John 16 Jesus says "all that the Father is mine". John 17:5 Jesus ask God to "glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began". I am sorry, it does get much clearer than that, even the Jews cleaely understood Jesus was claiming to be God.


Where does Jesus in the bible claim not to be God, where he says he is only a man, and ask is followers not to worship him?

Jesus is notoriously silent on the claim of being god with the exception of in John, which is coincidentally both the last written and the most different of the four canonical gospels. It is not a stretch to infer that the author of John made changes to the gospel in accordance with their own theological convictions: very early christianity was as a rule not clear on the nature of Jesus' divinity, but later theological advances saw the notion that Jesus was in fact god gain popularity.

That is Muslim logic and that means that any one who does not know classicsal Arabic as their native tongue, which is most Muslims, can't know the Koran, and so must fear for their soul. Even a Muslim who knows.classicsl Arabic, but has to mentally translate it in his head to a language he normally speaks, can't know thr Koran. So you must be terrified.

But a translation does not have perfect, merely good enough. From thr words Jesus said, and the reaction of the Jews to it, and the other things Jesus said, there is little doubt of what was meant. Even when people the same language, there is ways the possibility people can interpret the same words differently and have a different understanding. So according to you, nobody can communicatr with each other, since there is always the potential for misunderstanding.

Jesus and his followers spoke Aramaic; the gospels were written in Greek after decades of verbal storytelling. It is difficult to believe that the gospels were accurate in all, even in most, of the passages of theological significance. As a sidenote, scholars of early christianity generally agree that the gospels used each other as a source, thus propagating errors in translation, understanding, and transmission of the story of Jesus' life.

[Common Soldier]

Jesus is notoriously silent on the claim of being god with the exception of in John, which is coincidentally both the last written and the most different of the four canonical gospels.

Jesus was silent in the synoptic gospel because he was never asked directly. When Jesus was directly questioned in Mark 14:61, Jesus reply in 14:62 was inderstood Jesus claiming to be God and thus be blasphemy by the priest. Further more in Mark 2, it is said that only God could forgive sins, and yet Jesus bu his healing the lame man showed he could heal sins and was by implication God. I would.argue that implicitly if not explictly thr synopic gospels showed Jesus was divine. John merely mmade.explicit what the other gospels implied.


Colosians and other or Paul's writing makes clear Paul understood Jesus to be more some mere human, and Paul came before the Gospels . Pillipians 2:5.- 11 said "Jesus was the very form of God" and "every knee shall bow and confess Jesus Lord" - honor that belongs to God alone, in Isaiah 45:21-23 it is to God alone every knee shall bow and tongue confess. In 1 Corithinians 8:6 it says "there is one Lord, Jesus Christm through whom all things came" Those are not the attibutes of mortal human.

Jesus and his followers spoke Aramaic; the gospels were written in Greek after decades of verbal storytelling. It is difficult to believe that the gospels were accurate in all, even in most, of the passages of theological significance. As a sidenote, scholars of early christianity generally agree that the gospels used each other as a source, thus propagating errors in translation, understanding, and transmission of the story of Jesus' life.

I have.stories from my grandfather of him growing up as a kid. The events took place in a different language and decades earlier yer I know them to be truez, other relatives have confirmed them, I have been to his boyhood home. If his stories, told from events just as long ago and translated from another language csn be true, no reason to doubt the gospels. John in pwrticular shows no evodence of copying from the other gospels yet confirms the othef gospels in thd most criticzl points.


Likewise predate the gospels yet also confirms them in many critical points also.

[Adamat]

Jesus was silent in the synoptic gospel because he was never asked directly. When Jesus was directly questioned in Mark 14:61, Jesus reply in 14:62 was inderstood Jesus claiming to be God and thus be blasphemy by the priest. Further more in Mark 2, it is said that only God could forgive sins, and yet Jesus bu his healing the lame man showed he could heal sins and was by implication God. I would.argue that implicitly if not explictly thr synopic gospels showed Jesus was divine. John merely mmade.explicit what the other gospels implied.


Colosians and other or Paul's writing makes clear Paul understood Jesus to be more some mere human, and Paul came before the Gospels . Pillipians 2:5.- 11 said "Jesus was the very form of God" and "every knee shall bow and confess Jesus Lord" - honor that belongs to God alone, in Isaiah 45:21-23 it is to God alone every knee shall bow and tongue confess. In 1 Corithinians 8:6 it says "there is one Lord, Jesus Christm through whom all things came" Those are not the attibutes of mortal human.

It would appear that the authors of Mark, Matthew and Luke, along with many early christians, didn't think that Jesus was in fact god: it is surely of the utmost theological importance whether Jesus was divine or not. Why would they leave the question open to interpretation, especially if Jesus supposedly did confirm this during his lifetime?

I have.stories from my grandfather of him growing up as a kid. The events took place in a different language and decades earlier yer I know them to be truez, other relatives have confirmed them, I have been to his boyhood home. If his stories, told from events just as long ago and translated from another language csn be true, no reason to doubt the gospels. John in pwrticular shows no evodence of copying from the other gospels yet confirms the othef gospels in thd most criticzl points.


Likewise predate the gospels yet also confirms them in many critical points also.

That a story can be true has no bearing on whether it is true. How have you determined that the gospels are accurate? How do you know that the authors were working on accurate information? How do you know that they didn't make their own changes to suit their own theological views? What about the many apocryphal gospels, why wouldn't you assess all of those as true? After all, you have no reason to doubt them, by your own admission.

[Common Soldier]

Duplicant post

[Common Soldier]

It would appear that the authors of Mark, Matthew and Luke, along with many early christians, didn't think that Jesus was in fact god: it is surely of the utmost theological importance whether Jesus was divine or not. Why would they leave the question open to interpretation, especially if Jesus supposedly did confirm this during his lifetime?

I disagree. Paul certainly thought of Jesus as divine, and contrary to your and many other scholar claims, we don't have early Christians asserting Jesus was not divine. The only early Christian wbose thoughts we actually have is Paul, and I already showed that Paul cleary thought Jesus was divine. His comments just could not be applied ro any mere himan, and Paul came before the Gospels.

As to why they were not more explicit, that just seems to be their style and the nature of Jesus teaching. In Luke 7:19 - 23, when John the Baptist messengers ask Jesus if Jesus was the one John was expecting, Jesus did not give a direct yes oe no, but list the miracles he performed .- essentially John's messengers were told "due the math". It was an important question, yet Jesus did not feel the need to give a direct answer.

That a story can be true has no bearing on whether it is true. How have you determined that the gospels are accurate? How do you know that the authors were working on accurate information? How do you know that they didn't make their own changes to suit their own theological views? What about the many apocryphal gospels, why wouldn't you assess all of those as true? After all, you have no reason to doubt them, by your own admission.

So your saying that my relatives, listing in a different country and not having seen him for decades conspired wirh him to fabricate the same story? I bring it up hecauee these armchsir scholars do not know real people.remember real events. Were these stories the gospels used entirely accurate? Almost certainly not. Are they complete.fabricstions.and totally inaccurate? No also. Simply because human is not perfect does not mean it is completely unreliable either

40 yeara is not that far in the past. By your and the scholars logic the testimony of zny Holocsust survivor dating from the 1990's should be discounted.snd not trusted. Same.for any.memories of a Vietnsm vetersn, Vietnam was roo fsr in the past. Tell me, do you accept thr stories of Buxdha's life? The srories of Muhammad's life as accurate?

[wanderwegger]

Which translation are we debating and in what language? Makes a big difference. None of them are true of course. But some are more like the original gospels which is a form of truth.

[Common Soldier]

Which translation are we debating and in what language? Makes a big difference. None of them are true of course. But some are more like the original gospels which is a form of truth.

The translation does not matter, "I and the Father are one" in John 10:30 is a pretty straight forward translation, and leaves little ambiguity. Just as important, the Jews reactions in the following verses make it absolutely that the Jews understood Jesus claimed to be God. The Jews even said the reason they were trying to stone Jesus was he was claiming to be God. Different translations are not going to change the meaning.


Here is a link to 20 different English translationsnof John 10:30 and I don't see the meanint changing in anyone of them. https://www.biblehub.com/john/10-30.htm

[wanderwegger]

Yes but the Jews killed a lot of preachers for claiming to be god. And the overall translations differ so much that only a silly boy would take one verse and not the whole bible to be the meaning of the Word.

[basics]

wanderwegger,

I have read that the Jews killed the prophets even of men claiming to be Messias but never any claiming to be God apart from Jesus so where does your information come from? So, is Jesus God or not? Here's an interesting point regarding the working of God. In the Law He always has a double witness to ascertain the truth of any subject He reveals and so it is with the Gospels. Mathew and John were associate Jewish disciples with Jesus but Mark and Luke were both Gentile yet still another double witness to all that Jesus said and did. God is very precise in His works for He is not stupid that's why He leaves nothing to chance. So, from that we can see that Christianity is for all kinds and creeds according to the will of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. There's no yes buts about the Bible, you either believe it to be the word of God or you are blind to its wonderful beauty and truth.

[Common Soldier]

Yes but the Jews killed a lot of preachers for claiming to be god.

Note true. The Jews did not kill anu other preacher claiming to be god that I am aware of. Since you claim lots of preachers were, you should have no problem 3 or 4 examples, so please provide those examples.

And the overall translations differ so much that only a silly boy would take one verse and not the whole bible to be the meaning of the Word.

You asked for a verse and I provided it. One verse is all that is required. But there are other verses as well, is not just one verse. I just did not want to waste my time digging out other verses which you find some excuse or other to reject, just as you do now.

More than the direct verses there are the indirect ones as well. Jesus claims many of the attributes that only belong to God.

He is to be worshipped, but the OT says only God is to be worshiped, so Jesus must be God or a blasphemer. J
Jesus says that every knee will bow to him and confess him to be Lord, but the OT says every knee will bow to God and confess God is Lord..
Jesus is called LORD, LORD is one of the titles of God.
The world was created by Jesus but Genesis says God created the world.
Jesus says he is the First and Last, but those are the title of God
Jesus has the ability to forgive sins but only God can forgive sins
Jesus he shared his glory with God but the OT says God will not share his glory - if Jesus shared God's glory he must be God.
Jesus has all judgement to him. But the OT says god will be the judge
Jesus existed before Moses, thousands of years earlier and said "I AM". I AM is one of the titles of God.

If Jesus has the rights and prerogatives that only belong to God per the Old Testament, Jesus must be God. Now Jesus and the New Testsment may be wrong, but that is not the same thing as saying it does not say he is God as you claim. If I say 2 + 2, that is the same as 4, even if I don't say 4 directly

[Adamat]

I disagree. Paul certainly thought of Jesus as divine, and contrary to your and many other scholar claims, we don't have early Christians asserting Jesus was not divine. The only early Christian wbose thoughts we actually have is Paul, and I already showed that Paul cleary thought Jesus was divine. His comments just could not be applied ro any mere himan, and Paul came before the Gospels.

As to why they were not more explicit, that just seems to be their style and the nature of Jesus teaching. In Luke 7:19 - 23, when John the Baptist messengers ask Jesus if Jesus was the one John was expecting, Jesus did not give a direct yes oe no, but list the miracles he performed .- essentially John's messengers were told "due the math". It was an important question, yet Jesus did not feel the need to give a direct answer.

The nature of Jesus was hotly contested by early christians whether you like it or not. The question was, roughly speaking, whether he was more a demigod like Hercules, a mortal made divine like some Roman leaders and such, or whether he was in fact god. https://youtu.be/7IPAKsGbqcg

So your saying that my relatives, listing in a different country and not having seen him for decades conspired wirh him to fabricate the same story? I bring it up hecauee these armchsir scholars do not know real people.remember real events. Were these stories the gospels used entirely accurate? Almost certainly not. Are they complete.fabricstions.and totally inaccurate? No also. Simply because human is not perfect does not mean it is completely unreliable either

No, I'm saying that if your Italian granddad died, and stories about him were being circulated in, say, Norway half a century later, by people who had never met your granddad, who based their versions of the stories of your granddad entirely on orally transmitted tales that your granddad was special in the first place, then I wouldn't be inclined to believe the English translation of the French translation of the Norwegian translation of the Italian stories are very accurate.

40 yeara is not that far in the past. By your and the scholars logic the testimony of zny Holocsust survivor dating from the 1990's should be discounted.snd not trusted. Same.for any.memories of a Vietnsm vetersn, Vietnam was roo fsr in the past. Tell me, do you accept thr stories of Buxdha's life? The srories of Muhammad's life as accurate?

This is a weak analogy. We have mountains of independent evidence that the Holocaust happened. Also, the Gospels weren't written by witnesses, so your analogy would be closer to a student writing a piece on the holocaust based on the stories that the non-jewish old lady who lives across the street told them. Further, if accounts of the Holocaust included claims that the camp guards multiplied food, or that some central figure got up after being executed, then those claims would not be believed because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Did Jesus exist? I'd say it's likely that some Jesus figure (or figures) existed, yes. Itinerant apocalyptic rabbis weren't uncommon in 1st century Galilee. Was this figure divine or special in any way? No, you'd have to show that using actual evidence, not word of mouth from his fan club. I extend the same courtesy to other religions: did Muhammad exist? Yes, that's actually very well attested. Did he flee Mecca? Yes, this is also well-documented and isn't an extraordinary claim. Did he speak to god? No, this is an extraordinary claim and thus requires extraordinary evidence.

[wanderwegger]

Note true. The Jews did not kill anu other preacher claiming to be god that I am aware of. Since you claim lots of preachers were, you should have no problem 3 or 4 examples, so please provide those examples.

Jews also didn't kill Jesus but to make it easy for you

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...siah_claimants

Lots of them were killed by Jews (and Romans)

And unlike Jesus, many of them were mentioned by Josephus including John the Baptist. In Jesus' own time there were likely hundreds of Messiah claimants. Jesus was so insignificant no one at the time thought it was worth mentioning him. Why we cant be sure he was even real

[basics]

wanderwegger,

So Mathew, John, Jude and James were not around when Jesus did the wonderful miracles? That Mary His mother and John were not there at His crucifixion? Pilate reluctantly had Him crucified because the Jews demanded it. He was killed because He taught what the Jewish leadership wouldn't accept yet all in the purpose of God. What was that purpose? To fulfill God's plan to redeem a people for Himself. God is Sovereign not man and we are only here to fulfill that plan which was made before creation. As was intentional there hasn't ever been a figure like Jesus Christ in all history, why? Because all that pretend to be the One are dead whilst He yet lives and is revealed to live each time God regenerates someone. This has been happening since Abel was accounted righteous before God and is still going on today and will go on right up to the very eve of His coming again.

[wanderwegger]

I am glad you agree Jesus performed miracles. And this we have established scripture saying the the Messiah will not perform miracles, we know Jesus was not Messiah.

I certainly agree if Jesus performed the miracles as stated, probably few like him in history. Criss Angel maybe.

I am surprised that in a period where so much was written and so much survived no one thought to mention such amazing things.

Why do you thing there are no contemporary sources for Jesus?