"How do Christians know the Bible is the inspired Word of God?"

1. 0

   Cranfordjsposted 13 years ago

   
   People, please stop using the question section to post. I hate leaving comments on questions because people take advantage of the one response rule to take a shot at the previous comments. This forum is inspired by a recent comment I left on a question, "How do Christians know the Bible is the inspired Word of God?" -restlesswaters. I had enough negative votes that my comment was "hidden"! So with that said, I'm am going to 'unhidden' it.  I'm starting a forum using the same question that I was down voted on. I invite the people who voted me down to further their reason with a comment on this thread. A comment that should be more confident than hitting the negative vote button and running. A comment within itself that can accept the possible criticism from the world wide web. All in all, I invite everyone to participate in this question, "How do Christians know the Bible is the inspired Word of God?"!

   replyreport
   1. 0

      ShadowKing!posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I have a series of hubs that present logical arguments that a Superior Intelligent Mind did commission the Scriptures.
      
      Canonization: How God Proves to Us the Bible is His Word (Rules 1-4)
      <snipped - no promotional links in the forums>

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Jesus was a hippyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         In order to come to some conclusion about the truth of such an extraordinary claim, then extraordinary EVIDENCE is required and not just an "argument" based on philosophy which does not prove anything.

         replyreport
   2. 50

      paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      It is just superstition.
      
      The Bible writers were sinful persons who deserted Jesus while he was in agony on the Cross; they did not believe that Jesus will not die on the Cross as he has promised the miracle of Jonah to the Jews.

      replyreport
   3. 0

      snapcracklepopposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      The Bible does not need validation or verification from humans for being inspired of God, because it, the Bible, verifies it's ownself as being inspired of God at 2nd Timothy 3:16 and verse 17.

      replyreport
2. 0

   Cranfordjsposted 13 years ago

   My initial post, 'Their software during childhood was written to format Christianity's Bible as fact. Or it was obtain later in life, maybe in regards to a life crisis that benefited from the placebo effect that religion produces'.

   replyreport
3. 60

   ediggityposted 13 years ago

   Through faith

   replyreport
4. 74

   Caleb DRCposted 13 years ago

   1 chance in 10^1050 of 3,500 prophesies coming true. Also predicted earth as round, fractal geometry, structure of space, space being expanded. vacuum being created and having structure, polarity of space( we have not discovered this yet), etc. These are reasons I know the Bible is God's true and inspired Word. It goes beyond faith---I absolutely know it. I wrote 2 hubs on it.

   replyreport
   1. 70

      AshtonFireflyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      That would prove it scientifically correct, but would that prove its being God's true and inspired Word? Only if scientific accuracy is connected to being spiritually inspired...
      What about the books that don't prophecy anything?

      replyreport
      1. 74

         Caleb DRCposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Hi Ashton: It is the accuracy and prophetic nature of the scientific assertions in Scripture that prove the Bible is inspired by God. Only God would have this foreknowledge of what would turn out to be scientific revolutions. Only God inhabits eternity( Isa. 57:15), and only God knows the end from the beginning(Isa. 46:10)
              I trust the scholars of the King James Version to have included the correct books of the Bible. I understand that one criterion they used is if Jesus Christ referred or quoted from it then that Scripture was included. So if Christ referred or quoted from a Scripture--regardless if it contained prophesy--then it had His stamp of approval, and was included.
         
            I personally believe that scientific accuracy is connected to being inspired if it is never proven wrong; furthermore, I believe all accurate scientific insight is given to us by God--albeit sometimes after a whole lot of hard work.
              To reduce redundancy I have, in my response to Hippy below, included some Scriptural references, which you may want to check out. I'll have it posted in a couple of days, hopefully.
              Say hi to Bren and Little Dipper for me. They sent back my Christmas gifts: a blue and orange outfit for Bren, and the same colors of metallic paint for the Dipper. They even got mad at me texting the message: "Don't try that stunt again!"  It seems like I just can't stay out of the dog-house lately

         replyreport
         1. 70

            AshtonFireflyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            LOL! (about the little dipper and bren part....not about your comment about God ...lol...)
            But...about the prophetic accuracy, wouldn't it just be a Christian's  assumption that only a deity would be aware of scientific prophetic accuracy? Could there not be other reasons? Not sure what to think...hmm...

            replyreport
            1. 74

               Caleb DRCposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Yes, Bren and The Dipper comment was my way of saying your profile was . . .  refreshing.
               What other reasons would there be, Ashton?  But we can't discuss that here; we must shift it to the "Little Green Men" forums. Besides, with the thousands of prophesies that have been fulfilled, relatively few are scientific. Most of them can only be explained with God being the Prophet Who inspired the Scriptures. Can you come up with alternative explanations?

               replyreport
   2. 60

      Jesus was a hippyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      You might want to research these "prophecies". Many of them are so vague they can be interpretted to mean just about anything. Just google "failed bible prophecies" and "vague bible prophecies".
      
      Some people already knew the earth was round. fractal geometry is not at all explained by the bible, neither the structure of space (what structure? there isnt one, space is empty). None of what you claimed is explained by the bible. It is just simple verses that have been twisted and misinterpretted to try and make them look like that is what they were trying to say. That can be achieved with any text.
      
      As for you "absolutely knowing it", I put it to you that you dont know it at all. You only think you do because you are being dishonest with yourself.
      
      In any case, how does any of these things you wrote about even IF they are true, demonstrate that a god exists?
      
      Muslims claim that the koran explains many of these things that scientists hadnt yet discovered so why aren't you a muslim? Their book meets EXACTLY the same criteria that you use to get to the conclusion that the bible is true.

      replyreport
      1. 74

         Caleb DRCposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Hello Hippy: I have not time to address every thing you brought up, and what I do address will not be thorough.
              I will google what you said, but my initial response is, What is vague? There is nothing vague about the 5 details in the single verse of Zec. 9:9. It says Jesus would be just(1), have salvation(2), be meek(3), ride on an ass(4), and the final detail is it was a young ass(5). Zec. 9:9 was fulfilled at Mt. 21:1-11. There is nothing vague about the two--three if we include order--details at Psa. 22:18( part garments and cast lots); this was fulfilled at Mt. 27:35.  There is nothing vague about  Daniel's predictions at Dan. 12:4 concerning the proliferation of both travel and knowledge, which is a prophesy being fulfilled right now in our time.  There is nothing vague about giving Jesus vinegar  to drink( Psa. 69:21, and fulfilled at Mt. 27:34).
         
         Yes, I agree with you that some people knew the earth was round. Job and his 3 friends( 4 counting Elihu) knew it was round( Job 22:19). His wife and children knew it was round. Isaiah knew it( Isa. 40:22). In fact anyone who knew and believed God's Word knew it; however, the general consensus those thousands of years ago was to believe it was flat.
         
              The structure of space is mentioned many times in Scripture.  Isa. 40:22 tells us that not only space has structure but that it can be stretched and spread out. I personally believe that V22 also teaches that God stretches and spreads space now because those verbs are present tense. This is confirmed in astronomy. God stretching space is also mentioned at Isa. 44:24; Zec. 12:1; Jer. 51:15. Space having polarity is at Job 26:7( the oldest book in the Bible), and we have not even discovered this yet, at least not to my knowledge.  The vacuum being created is at Isa. 45:7. The Bible calls it darkness; we call it a vacuum field. Via the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle( or at least a form of it) the vacuum field is seething with virtual particles and has enormous energy. I'm writing an entire hub on fractal geometry and the Bible.
         
              You said above, "What structure? there isn't one, space is empty."  If space is non-existent then I agree, it should have no structure. But the fact is that God created space, He stretches space and it does have structure. Concerning the existence and structure of space, astronomers believe this is a fact as do cosmologists, physicists and nearly every educated person. It is not an esoteric fact. Stephen Hawking, and Roger Penrose( two of our most famous physicists) have spoken and/or written about this. I was watching a documentary on Discovery or Nat Geo channel, and the scientist said, "It is not an expansion of matter in space. It is an expansion of space itself."  I must have seen a dozen shows, intended for the layman, that said the same thing. A foundational concept in Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is the structure of space. And in his Special Theory of Relativity space contracts with increasing speed. Both theories have been firmly established in our science, and they have been proven to be true many times and in many ways.

         replyreport
         1. 58

            A Troubled Manposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            LOL! So, God was actually teaching us about relativity and space but we were too wrapped up in worship, obedience and tending to sheep that we missed experiencing that enlightenment?

            replyreport
            1. 81

               aka-djposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Interesting you say "we". Are you including yourself in that?
               Probably not.
               
               However, there were som people with foresight who DID read the scriptures and unlocked it's content wisdom and knowledge.
               I heard the story of how the porcelain, used in high tension cable suspension was discovered. Apparently, there was no know formula that could withstand the 10's of 1000's of volts they carried. The guy who "invented" the correct ingredients found his clue in scripture.
               
               Perhaps if you actually SEARCHED and STUDIED it, instead of just ridiculing it, and it's proponents, you might actually learn something.
               
               
               I don't like my chances of that ever happening, but at least I can take comfort in knowing I suggested it.
               
               
               
               
               
               
               PS. Is it fun tending sheep? I've never tried.

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  recommend1posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  This is a crock. (literally)
                  
                  The Chinese had procelain before the scriptures were even written, there was no need to seek heavenly guidance at all, they just needed go ask the inventors.

                  replyreport
               2. 58

                  A Troubled Manposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Like who, for example?
                  
                  
                  
                  I might learn something? Really?
                  
                  Here you go, please show me where it says Locke used scriptures for his invention?
                  
                  http://www.insulators.info/porcelain/history.htm
                  
                  http://fredlocke.insulators.info/
                  
                  

                  replyreport
5. 51

   fuzzrabbitposted 13 years ago

   It isn't the "inspired "Word". (That's the Holy Spirit, not the Bible)
   
   
   From "Fragments of Hegesippus" http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/hegesippus.html
   
   And, when many were fully convinced by these words, and offered praise for the testimony of James, and said, "Hosanna to the son of David," then again the said Pharisees and scribes said to one another, "We have not done well in procuring this testimony to Jesus. But let us go up and throw him down, that they may be afraid, and not believe him." And they cried aloud, and said: "Oh! oh! the just man himself is in error." Thus they fulfilled the Scripture written in Isaiah: "Let us away with the just man, because he is troublesome to us: therefore shall they eat the fruit of their doings." So they went up and threw down the just man, and said to one another: "Let us stone James the Just." And they began to stone him: for he was not killed by the fall; but he turned, and kneeled down, and said: "I beseech Thee, Lord God our Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do."
   
   Pseudoclementine Recognitions, Book 1
   Here's Clement on the attack on James by Paul:
   
   1.70 -- Tumult Raised by Saul.
   
   "And when matters were at that point that they should come and be baptized, some one of our enemies,63 entering the temple with a few men, began to cry out, and to say, 'What mean ye, O men of Israel? Why are you so easily hurried on? Why are ye led headlong by most miserable men, who are deceived by Simon, a magician?'
   
   "While he was thus speaking, and adding more to the same effect, and while James the bishop was refuting him, he began to excite the people and to raise a tumult, so that the people might not be able to hear what was said.
   
   "Therefore he began to drive all into confusion with shouting, and to undo what had been arranged with much labour, and at the same time to reproach the priests, and to enrage them with revilings and abuse, and, like a madman, to excite every one to murder, saying, 'What do ye? Why do ye hesitate? Oh sluggish and inert, why do we not lay hands upon them, and pull all these fellows to pieces?'
   
   "When he had said this, he first, seizing a strong brand from the altar, set the example of smiting. Then others also, seeing him, were carried away with like readiness. Then ensued a tumult on either side, of the beating and the beaten. Much blood is shed; there is a confused flight, in the midst of which that enemy attacked James, and threw him headlong from the top of the steps; and supposing him to be dead, he cared not to inflict further violence upon him."
   
   _______
   Now:
   Compare to Acts 7:54-8:1. Stephen utters "Lord, do not hold this sin against them." Same words spoken by James are then put in the mouth of JESUS, a second attempt at plagiarism, in the gospel accounts of the crucifixion. This is the stoning of fictitious "Stephen" who is killed where James should be being stoned -- the grave clothes of the condemned (not witnesses, as the condemned is the one stripped and buried to the waist) are put at the feet of "Saul", indicating his involvement in the crime, and his approval. This follows fictitious "Judas Iscariot" being replaced by fictitious "Matthias" in Acts 1, where James should be the one being "elected" to replace Jesus as leader of the Jerusalem assembly. Luke brings the real James in after the 'other' James is killed by the sword a few chapters later. James is seen as the leader in the Jerusalem Council segment, even above Peter.The defeated candidate is Joseph Barsabas Justus, a twisting of James (the "Just") son ('bar') of 'sabas' (his father) Joseph (Jesus and James' father -- note, not GOD!). That's the literary bone to the dog Luke must have thought was cute, but tips off the real dynamic here, of the election or appointment of James to follow Jesus, as leader of the movement.
   (all from Eisenman)

   replyreport
   1. 76

      Castlepalomaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      We simply don't know from other persons perspective and even less so , when God's word was hand me downs re translated from many others writers many times over. . What we do know, if God's words had spoken to each of us as individuals, then the proof is when it is those spiritual word are manifest into the physical experience. Unless we experience Jesus 2000 years ago at first hand on what he was vaguely saying before it was translated to written languages we don't know.
      
      To rewrite again and again in to many difference language and cultures by others writer  worldwide. make their translation were wrong.
      
      Sum up
      
      Jesus was very intelligent,spiritual, and may have been right, and for his time. Just the writer translations are far too contradicting to be from one source and therefore are wrong.

      replyreport
6. 57

   Jeramiposted 13 years ago

   I believe that the bible was inspired by God because prophesy forewarns everything that has happened for the past 1900 years.
   
      BUT   ....   as long as people attempt to forcast all of these things to be future events ....  the blind will continue to lead the blind.  ,,,AND ... 
   The Mystery of scripture will continue. ... At least for a while longer.

   replyreport
   1. 88

      wildernessposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Using that reason, Nostradamus was also inspired by God and spoke nothing but truth.  His predictions are at least as accurate as the bibles and take about the same amount of interpretation.

      replyreport
      1. 57

         Jeramiposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Inspired by God ....   or inspired by his own reasoning as to that which is written in scripture.
         
            I would imagine that he did read the scriptures and developed a different understanding of them ... than what the church at that time, would tolerate.
         
            This just might have given him insight, much deeper than what the average man could imagine?

         replyreport
7. 88

   wildernessposted 13 years ago

   To the original OP: they don't, of course.  However, if the bible is NOT the inspired word of God then it is worthless as a religious tool.  Therefore the choice must be made to believe that it is whether it actually is or not.  Faith.

   replyreport
8. 71

   Cagsilposted 13 years ago

   Hey Cranford, through a personal chosen ignorance.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Cranfordjsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      hehe I know right! Happy winter solstice Cagsil!

      replyreport
      1. 71

         Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Have a great holiday season and keep yourself and family safe.

         replyreport
         1. 81

            aka-djposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Interesting comment!
            
            Just how much control do any of us have on our own safety?

            replyreport
9. 60

   pisean282311posted 13 years ago

   obviously it is matter of faith than anything else...but that applies to all religions...

   replyreport
10. 55

    crystalbabyposted 13 years ago

    Thank you for sharing.

    replyreport
11. 60

    SpanStarposted 13 years ago

    People are constantly wanting proof of God as if that matters.  People rejected Jesus time and time again even after seeing the miracles he preformed why even is own disciplines could accept him as the son of God until he came back after death.
    
    I have no doubt that should God talk to all mankind from the sky many of us would just blow it off and I'm certain the military would prepare to destroy God with our silly weapons.  A being tha can create not one sun but all suns and we have it in our mind that we can defeat or destroy him-I've always said to myself the only way we can kill God is to threaten him and "Wstch Him Laugh Himself To Death."

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Cranfordjsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       I'm beyond wanting proof. I want to know what miracles you've seen him perform. Not hear say that you have read. You can't tell me so and so stated it in the bible because we can't know through handed down stories.

       replyreport
       1. 60

          SpanStarposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          All of history is hand me down stories.  If you want miracles then You Want Proof.
          
          If you want to see miracles learning the teachings of Jesus and you will see what's been in froint of your eyes your whole life.
          
          We are miracles-Living beings who's bodies think and heal themselves.

          replyreport
          1. 0

             Cranfordjsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             But all of the holy books make the same charges. If Christianity's bible had more "proof", 70 percent of earth's population that doesn't believe, would believe.
             
             "That in itself is evidence that religion (particularily Christianity), as we know it, holds no merit. If you have to redefine the "word of God," we are faced with a serious logical fallacy. You can change one's conception of scripture all you want, but it does not change the fundamental fact that religious doctrine, in its original form, is incompatible with the modern world. This is serious evidence that religion has mortal origins"- Sam Harris

             replyreport
             1. 60

                SpanStarposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                Are you comparing biblical scripture with human history? Human history that I've read is deplorable with a countless number of wars, killings, rapes, etc. who are we to judge?

                replyreport
                1. 71

                   Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                   Are you not suppose to judge the actions? Which you have done in your post?

                   replyreport
                2. 0

                   Cranfordjsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                   I'm comparing the silliness of man made religion in a broad sense. The only advantage Christianity has on you (making it the religion you are defending), is the fact you were born into a Christian society

                   replyreport
                   1. 60

                      SpanStarposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                      Everyone on this planet for the most part is indoctrinated with the teachings of those around us. The only questions becomes which one and who are you going to believe? Therefore if you have some means of ascertaining what is the true and irrefutable spiritual belief by all means do share!

                      replyreport
                      1. 71

                         Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                         An oxymoron. True and irrefutable spiritual belief? These words don't even belong in the same sentence.

                         replyreport
                         1. 60

                            SpanStarposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                            People do believe their faith is true and solid be it true or not.

                            replyreport
                            1. 60

                               pisean282311posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                               agreed

                               replyreport
                            2. 71

                               Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                               You have no idea how much volume that statement speaks. To quote your savior- "Forgive them for they know not what they do".

                               replyreport
                               1. 60

                                  SpanStarposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                  Can't disagree with that.
                                  
                                  Also thanks for the input pisean

                                  replyreport
                                  1. 0

                                     Cranfordjsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                     @spanstar - Those "indoctrinations" do not teach that the other teams (religion) will go to hell. Yes, we are a product of our environment. But religion has to be taken out of such a casual part of growing up. Nothing is more important than the questions of the universe. It's more complicated than "which one and who are you going to believe". For me? None of the above.

                                     replyreport
          2. 0

             ShadowKing!posted 13 years agoin reply to this

             Bible says "faith without works is dead". The works relates to performance. So if a person can't physically demonstrate or act out what they particularly have religious faith in, then, that faith is baseless.
             
             Then again, I have faith that my God will one day reveal himself to the world but I cannot physically manifest this faith into a provable visual or auditory act. Therefore, my faith is baseless in its core element.
             
             It all boils down to "possibility". We will just have to wait for the possibility that a Supreme Deity will reveal "himself/itself" because "he's/it's" real or will never because "he/it" isn't real.
             
             Endless arguments only create frustration among the sensitive in heart.

             replyreport
             1. 0

                Cranfordjsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                No, "endless arguments" create constructive dialogue. This in turn promotes people to keep their religion to themselves. Do you think people have "endless" arguments in he middle east about Islam? If people didn't feel the need to impose laws with Religious agendas backing them, I wouldn't care about religion.

                replyreport
                1. 0

                   ShadowKing!posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                   Your point of view is right. So is mine. Many people, religious or not, wear their emotions on their shoulder. Anyone willing can knock them off. Because those who have this reality, tend to get frustrated quicker than those who don't. Point of experience.
                   
                   Hub writer Deborah Sexton refuses to approve my comments on her hubs. Regardless that I present logical and calm arguments of opposition. She's too sensitive about her writings. However, people lambaste my writings with comments that I approve. I just response, revealing the contradictions or unprovable statements that they make. I never take offense, except when someone attacks my mental aptitude (like when Judah's Daugther did). Which anyone with dignity and integrity would likely do too.
                   
                   So my point remains the same...endless arguments do create frustration among sensitive hearted people. And most people, men too, are highly sensitive about their beliefs. The "constructive aspect" only applies to those who are secure in their beliefs and have the maturity and intellect to keep all debates tied to provability and rationalization.
                   
                   We are not at a stalemate but rather we have arrived at the same outcome with two plausible and correlating sides. Yet, you might beg to differ.

                   replyreport
    2. 60

       Jesus was a hippyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Maybe people rejected Jesus at the time because there were no miracles.
       
       People rejected Joseph Smith too when he was alive. Look how many mormons there are today........
       
       See the similarity?

       replyreport
       1. 0

          ShadowKing!posted 13 years agoin reply to this

          They didn't reject him back then because let's say,  he didn't actually perform any miracles. He was rejected by orthodox Jews because he claimed to be equal to God.  You go and say "I am God" to a Jew of today and watch how he/she will winch at your words. Say the same thing to an American and you might hear back, "Okay, cool! Um, can you tell me which street the nearest Barnes & Noble is on?"

          replyreport
          1. 60

             Jesus was a hippyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             I would like very much to know how you know why people didnt beleive in jesus miracles. Where you there?
             
             Are you honestly telling me that if a Jew saw onof jesus miracles with their own eyes they would ignore it because they dont like what he is saying?
             
             Thats odd because if I saw a miracle I would be in awe.
             
             I think that it stands to reason that there were no miracles on the grounds that people did not believe him. If people saw a miracle with their own eyes they would have no option but to believe what they saw.

             replyreport
             1. 0

                ShadowKing!posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                First, your very last paragraph is merely an opinion. And an opinion is something could or could not be based on facts. So your comment is only true to those who view it the same way you do. A debate shouldn't be focused on that opinion because we'll never see eye to eye on it.
                
                So moving along.
                You assume that a physical act of awe by a person is all that is needed for a person to believe that that person is holy and divine. If that is the case, then yes, David Blaine, Copperfield, Houdini, and other performed many physical acts of awe--the basic definition of miracle. So should we believe they're divine too?
                
                You also assume that a miracle can't be mistaken for a magic trick. This type of thinking has people believing that the "magical acts" we see today are strictly products of modern times (1800-presents). But they don't realize that most of these magical tricks have ancient origins. That is how many Biblical "sorcerers" and "witches" deceived other into believing they had powers.
                
                However, a lot of ancient people knew those same "tricks" were not "ACTS of GOD" or divine powers. Thus, one could easily mistake a miracle performance of healing the afflicted with a medicinal ritual of curing the sick. My point is not that Jesus DID or DID NOT perform any miracles, my point is that "performing miracles" wasn't the requisite by which many Jews did not believe. (The Bible notes that some claimed he was being aided by demons when he performed certain miracles, thus proving that some DID NOT believe in what they saw).
                
                Now, if you think I literally meant every single Jew back then or now didn't or wouldn't believe his miracles then you are trying to play off words rather than understand the context of what I wrote. My point is that I've asked Jews people believing in Judaism why they don't believe in the Bible Jesus, And the answer is always the same..."because he claimed to be God and the Messiah and the Messiah hasn't come yet" and then they usually went into quoting an Old Testament scripture.
                
                If you think I'm wrong go interview some Jews people holding to Judaism. Get it from the horse's mouth, so to speak.

                replyreport
                1. 60

                   Jesus was a hippyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                   I said that "it stands to reason" which is much more honest then you flat out claiming that people didnt believe for the reason you gave when you werent even there.
                   
                   
                   
                   They're not claiming to be god though are they? They are claming to be showmen and as a result, there is no need to test wether or not they are genuinly performing acts or just tricking people. That is not a good comparison and no, I didnt say the act of awe was enough, I said seeing a miracle with your own eyes was. Dont put words in my mouth. It is called creating strawmen and is a fallacy.
                   
                   
                   
                   If it were a real miracle then it could be tested and proven to be such. Noone did that in the bible though did they? It's all just hearsay and as a result, worthless.
                   
                   
                   
                   Again, just hearsay. You asserted why the Jews didnt believe. You cant possibly be telling me that you made such an assertion based on the hearsay of an old book?
                   
                   
                   
                   I'm not talking about modern day Jews. I was pulli you up on your claim as to why jews did not believe jesus 2000 years ago hence I asked if you were there.

                   replyreport
                   1. 0

                      ShadowKing!posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                      For your first paragraph...
                      
                      According to a Jewish website: "Judaism...does not rely on "claims of miracles" as the basis for its religion. In fact, the Bible says that God sometimes grants the power of "miracles" to charlatans, in order to test Jewish loyalty to the Torah. " According to the Bible: "There shall not be found among you anyone who...practices witchcraft, or a soothsayer, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer..." (Duet. 18:10).
                      
                      Other Judaism-based websites contend: "Judaism says that the Messiah will be born of HUMAN PARENTS, and possess normal physical attributes LIKE OTHER PEOPLE. He will not be a DEMI-GOD, and will not possess SUPERNATURAL QUALITIES." As the Torah says: "God is not a mortal" (Numbers 23:19).
                      
                      Beingjewish.com, a personal website of Kressel, he states: "We do not believe that it is prophesied that the Messiah will be crucified. We do not believe that the Messiah will be the son of God."
                      
                      Now as for your second response. Miracle's general definition is "wonder" or "marvel". Again, the commonality in all the numbered meanings in the definition of miracle is "marvel". Marvel is simply an "act of awe" or "awe-inspiring act". I was trying to keep things simple for other people who might read it. The problem with debates and people who don't base their claims on provable evidence is that they don't explain things in common sense ways. So you can keep your strawman claim of diversion for yourself. The "magic tricks" of sorcerers and magicians IS A GOOD COMPARISON. Read the Bible.
                      
                      Exodus 7:11, Deut. 18:10, Isa. 19:3, Jere. 27:9, Dan. 2:2, Mala. 3:5, Acts 8:9 & 13:6, and Rev. 21:8 ALL SPEAK of people who were "sorcerers", "witches", or "magicians" and used deceptive magic tricks to lure people away from God. All I did in the comparison, dude, was show the similarities between ancient magicians and modern magicians and stated that a person could mistake a miracle for a magic trick and vice-versa.
                      
                      As far as your "hearsay" stuff about what most Jews anciently and modern-day believe--You're trying to spin words to get yourself out of a hole. My initial response to yours was "They didn't reject him BACK THEN because let's say,  he didn't actually perform any miracles. He was rejected by orthodox Jews [back then] because he claimed to be equal to God." This claim is basis for all their other doubts. John 10:30-31 says, "'I and My Father are one"... Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him." Jesus often said He was either the Son of God or equal to God and most Jews listening considered this blasphemy, which under their laws warranted immediate death. Him saying these put most Jews in a frame of mind to not even focus on anything else He did, but primarily what He said. "The Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, 'Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?' The Jews answered Him, saying, 'For a good work [miracles too] we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, MAKE YOURSELF GOD.'"
                      
                      You responded, ending your response with a personal opinion that you seemed to declare irrefutable. "If people saw a miracle with their own eyes they would have no option but to believe what they saw." I said that that was an opinion not provable with all people. Had you said "some people" I never would've commented. You didn't so I responded by writing, "So your comment is only true to those who view it the same way you do. A debate shouldn't be focused on that opinion because we'll never see eye to eye on it."
                      
                      Your whole argument is based on this opinion that "If people saw a miracle with their own eyes they would have no option but to believe what they saw." This is flawed reasoning which I addressed by writing "You assume that a physical act of awe [miracle] by a person is all that is needed for a person to believe that that person is holy and divine.  ... You also assume that a miracle can't be mistaken for a magic trick."
                      And that's the root of your argument that it is impossible for the two be misconstrued by the other. Again that is flawed reasoning, for I wrote, "This type of thinking has people believing that the "magical acts" we see today are strictly products of modern times (1800-presents). But they don't realize that most of these magical tricks have ancient origins. That is how many Biblical "sorcerers" and "witches" deceived other into believing they had powers."
                      
                      My point there was showing that anciently "magicians" were considered consorting with demons and if some of these same "magical tricks" used today have an ancient origin with demons, then, today's illusionists are actually practicing an old demonic art. Thus, anciently many people (Bible says "kingdoms" like Egypt & Rome) mistook genuine prophet "miracles" as "demonic wonders" and they mistook "demonic magic" for "miracles of God".
                      
                      In the end, I drew my prime argument back to my original intent, "My point is that I've asked Jews people believing in Judaism why they don't believe in the Bible Jesus." The core of it all is WHAT DID JUDAISM TEACH ANCIENTLY THAT IS STILL  A TENET TODAY?  "God is not a mortal" (Numbers 23:19) thus most ancient & modern Jews rejected Jesus's claim of deism.  And according to Moses Maimonides, considered by modern Jews to be the greatest Jewish philosopher and codifier of Jewish law in history, wrote: "Judaism is not about miracles". Thus, to 1st Century Jews that rejected Jesus' claim of "Godship" stands to reason that they would reject his miracles as a form of demon-influenced magic. So says John 8:52 "the Jews said to Him, “Now we KNOW that You have a demon!"
                      
                      These valid points have been the basis of my argument. Yet you fail to comprehend them because you refuse to see that your claim "If people saw a miracle with their own eyes they would have no option but to believe what they saw" is partially flawed. Some would believe in the authenticity of a miracle coming from God, some would believe the so-called miracle is just a demonic trick of magic, and some would believe the miracle is neither from God nor  Satan but rather an act of great illusion on the part of a mere man. These are the three most logical point of views in the world.

                      replyreport
                      1. 60

                         Jesus was a hippyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                         What this boils down to, Is you claimed to KNOW why jews rejected jesus 2000 years ago.
                         
                         I questionned that claim, I did not make an assertion, so you saying that I am wrong is a little odd since I am not making any assertion. I speculated at what would be reasonable, but I did not claim any knowledge on the topic.
                         
                         How do you know what jews believed 2000 years ago and why?
                         
                         YOU DONT.

                         replyreport
                         1. 60

                            Jesus was a hippyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                            "Your whole argument is based on this opinion that "If people saw a miracle with their own eyes they would have no option but to believe what they saw." "
                            
                            I said, and I quote "IT STANDS TO REASON....."
                            
                            Stop quote mining and claiming that I said it was fact. IM THE ONE WHO SAID IT. I would know if I claimed it was fact or not.

                            replyreport
                2. 60

                   Jesus was a hippyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                   I know, That is why I started the sentence with "I THINK IT STANDS TO REASON"
                   
                   You are the one flat out claiming to have knowledge as to why jews rejected jesus 2000 years ago.
                   
                   YOU are the one making baseless claims. I am questionning those claims and you are attacking me as if I am the one making claims.
                   
                   And you write an entire thesis based on your own strawan. What is the point?

                   replyreport
                   1. 0

                      ShadowKing!posted 13 years agoin reply to this

                      Point blank. You're ignorant.
                      
                      You're too caught up in your self-righteous attitude that you fail to use reason and see that I based my claim off of three sources.
                      1. I quoted the Bible where recorded testimony documents the general Jewish attitude of the First Century. Yet you ignore this and launch into rhetoric designed to slip you out of the hole you dug yourself into.
                      
                      2. I mentioned that I had asked several Jewish people questions to this topic and they gave me answers based on their belief and knowledge of their cultural history and religious sentiments. Yet you ignore this answer and continue to spin rhetoric designed to extract your lost argument out of the ditch you dug yourself into.
                      
                      3. Based on the above two findings, I had took a look at Judaism. Rabbinical writings confirm the Jewish sentiments against Jesus as recorded in the New Testament. The Jewish folks I talked to based their sentiments off Judaism, thus certain Judaic beliefs denounce the Jesus character in the Bible. Yet you ignore these correlating points to continue to cling to flawed rhetoric in hopes to vindicate your impractical reason.
                      
                      Anyone with half a brain can see what you are doing. Your trying to avoid the fact that I proved your so-called "reason" flawed by trying to draw irrelevant focus to a false notion that I declared to know exactly what every single Jew of the 1st Century believed. You're caught in your own web of impractical conclusions and so you do exactly what people do who hate to admit their wrong--you ignore the valid points of your opponent and set an agenda to rectify your inconsistencies.
                      
                      Probably, not once did you attempt to verify my points with ANY Jewish person, ANY Jewish organization, or ANY third party. Yet in turn you didn't provide anything worth investigating, because your arguments were largely focused on spinning critical rhetoric AT ME and not addressing the validity of my claims, which as I stated above in 1, 2, 3 fashion can be shown to be practical and verifiable.
                      
                      This debate with you has now reached futile. Because you refuse to PROVE wrong the points I mentioned above with any creditable evidence. I know you will probably respond back with more idle rhetoric designed not to PROVE those 3 points wrong. So I end my argument with this:
                      
                      Anyone who reads our comments in their entirety and judge them based on ancient & modern documented facts, Jewish testimonies, and common sense will see your case has a large hole--that your opinion "If people saw a miracle with their own eyes they would have no option but to believe what they saw" is based on that all people think rational and seeing a "miracle" is undeniable proof of the supernatural.
                      
                      While they will see that my case is sensible--that not everyone uses rationality and some people seeing a so-called "miracle" will write it off as not evidence of the supernatural but a mere talent of human skill.
                      
                      So I leaving you to argue with yourself in a response and allow others reading this thread to make their own logical judgement on what is reasonable: that everyone seeing a miracle will believe it's proof of the supernatural or that some people will view a miracle as a illusion of human ability.
                      
                      Brando

                      replyreport
12. 60

    Goatus OQueefposted 13 years ago

    Through a delicate balance of circular reasoning, stubbornness, ignorance and indoctrination at a young age.

    replyreport
13. 50

    paarsurreyposted 13 years ago

    "How do Christians know the Bible is the inspired Word of God?"
    
    They have been made to believe it.
    The gospel writers were ignorant sinful persons.

    replyreport
    1. 81

       aka-djposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       That's true. They were!
       They witnessed the resurrected Christ!
       They were sinful writers indeed, just like any other human being on the planet.
       That, however, does NOT make the message untrue!

       replyreport
       1. 50

          paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Jesus did not die on the Cross; they did not see the resurrected Jesus from the dead; that makes them untruthful.

          replyreport
          1. 81

             aka-djposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             Mark 16;6“Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’” (Angel speaking to Mary (Magdalene).
             
             ;14Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen.
             
             So, according to you, Mark is a liar, Mary Magdalene is a liar, and ALL Eleven witnesses were liars.
             
             And what doe you base this on? Nothing but your own bias, formulated on the Koran's writings, which came over 600 years later. Mohammad was so far removed from the actual time of the (resurrection) event, and cannot be credible!
             
             You only take it as credible because you trust Mohammad's word without question.
             
             That's the ONLY basis you have!

             replyreport
             1. 50

                paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                I don't say they were liars. They saw Jesus recovered from the injuries; yet his wounds were still fresh; he had simply not died but recovered from the injurees; Jesus was the same person as he was befor putting him on the Cross.

                replyreport
                1. 81

                   aka-djposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                   Saying they were untruthful is the same thing!
                   
                   AND, if you read the account, instead of just hanging onto your own (biased) view, you will notice that He was definitely NOT the same as before the cross.

                   replyreport
                   1. 50

                      paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                      Jesus showed his wounds to others; that shows he did not die on the Cross; he was wounded though. He was the same Jesus as before without any difference.

                      replyreport
                      1. 81

                         aka-djposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                         You see what I mean???
                         You are not reading what the Bible says.
                         
                         You are INTERPRETING based on personal bias.

                         replyreport
                         1. 0

                            Cranfordjsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                            You really can't critique someone about the bible being that you follow it.
                            
                            "I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent." Timothy 2:11
                            
                            If you think this says something other than what it says, you are not reading the bible.

                            replyreport
                            1. 81

                               aka-djposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                               So?
                               
                               How is this even remotely relevant?
                               
                               If you don't want to listen to women preach/teach, don't.
                               makes no difference to me!

                               replyreport
                               1. 0

                                  Cranfordjsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                  It's relevant in regards to interpretations. People only go to interpretations because they don't like what it means. The bible is clear on what it says. If you don't follow it to the word, you're cherry picking it. That in it self is when Christianity loses merit.

                                  replyreport
                                  1. 70

                                     AshtonFireflyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                     hmm...how can you really "go to" an interpretation? To many, the Bible is NOT clear in what it says...it can be taken to mean a couple of different things, or different connotations, etc. This goes all the way back to our understanding of the Hebrew/Greek it was written in. wouldn't it be impossible to say that something "means" something without having interpreted it ourselves? Saying it IS clear is to take a certain view of how it should be interpreted. idk. just a thought. Not trying to butt into the conversation.

                                     replyreport
                                     1. 0

                                        Cranfordjsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                        If the bible is that shaky, I don't know why people rotate their lives around it. (at least the ones who are sincere in thinking it's literally the word of god)
                                        
                                        Besides the point of linguistics, how can people make interpretations nowadays with the bible printed out in English on their night stand? I understand one can split hairs but yea........
                                        
                                        For example here is a passage....
                                        "For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken. No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the Lord made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God." (Leviticus 21:18-21)
                                        
                                        I understand, maybe a person would argue it was translated wrong when converted to English....but with that said, the bible is the word of god. The above quote is from the bible, why is it left out of Christianity's practices nowadays?

                                        report
                                        1. 72

                                           glendoncabaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                           Just a response to the text cited in Leviticus.  Because it was a part of the Old Testament economy which had careful and detailed rituals of purifications and quarantine.  The spotless and clean participants in sanctuary rituals reflected the holiness of immortal Divine which had to be viewed as different from mortal.  This did not mean that there was no grace for the disabled and ill.

                                           report
                                        2. 60

                                           Jesus was a hippyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                           I just thought of an interesting point. If god knows everything, why didnt he have the foresight to have the bible originally written in the most globally accepted language?

                                           report
                                     2. 0

                                        Cranfordjsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                        @ glendocab- The Leviticus  quote is irrelevant for the most part. It serves  the point on interpretations I was making. Nevertheless, I understand your point. Thanks for the comment

                                        report
                                     3. 70

                                        AshtonFireflyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                        @Cranfordjs:Fair enough, interesting thoughts
                                        

                                        report
                                     4. 0

                                        Cranfordjsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                        Thanks! My thoughts are only as good as the opposing questions are to them.

                                        report
       2. 0

          Cranfordjsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          "What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof" -Christopher Hitchens

          replyreport
          1. 81

             aka-djposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             Proof  is in the experience.
             
             Life with God is one of faith, not (physical) proof.
             
             If proof is what you seek, you will not find.

             replyreport
             1. 0

                Cranfordjsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                I don't seek proof. There are too many religions I would have to go after. Since they are man made, I can take comfort in, they are 'man made'.

                replyreport
                1. 60

                   SpanStarposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                   Religion is for the most part faith however the questions you're asking is pure and simply show me proof.
                   
                   Proof for the most part doesn't matter so much anyway as bible history has shown that given proof and still some people can't believe or accept for example Jesus is the son of God.

                   replyreport
                   1. 0

                      Cranfordjsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                      Yes! show me proof that Christianity is the word of god over Islam and Hinduism.
                      
                      The idea of God doesn't bother me. It's when one goes further and proclaims to know which one it is.

                      replyreport
                      1. 60

                         SpanStarposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                         As I said before believing is based on faith.  One can either beleive or not believe at least in the Christain faith they have that choice.
                         
                         If I were to take a guess at why God chose this because having evidents or proof requires no faith and having faith one is more trusting.

                         replyreport
                         1. 0

                            Cranfordjsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                            I have faith in science. I have faith that man made religion is man made. God wouldn't leave sketchy, loosely interpreted 'holly' books for us to kill each other over.
                            
                            Look at the "ten commandments" lol. If he/she/it was going to leave us with only ten commandments, wouldn't they be more important, and able to stay relative through out history. They seem  better served 1000 years ago

                            replyreport
                            1. 60

                               SpanStarposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                               We are clearly seeing to different Ten Commendments.
                               
                               With all the documents we have for running a city is shameful when with the Ten Commandments you can not only run your family in peace and harmony but you could run a planet in peace and harmony-No Man Could  have ever come up with such a simple and effective way to live life.  We just don't think like that.

                               replyreport
                            2. 53

                               speaseposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                               Why do you no think the Ten Commandments are not relevant today?

                               replyreport
                               1. 0

                                  Cranfordjsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                  So these commandments were literally written by God. Consider the second commandment. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graves image. Is this really the second most important thing to admonish to future generations. We can replace this with many other things that would serve the bible better. Don't beat your children.........Thou shalt not pretend to know what he can't possible know. If you are a Jesus fanyboy, I hope you follow them to the tee. It would be ironic if you didn't.
                                  
                                  (The comment is mine, but I have to note the idea and direction is from Sam Harris. In regards to the second covenant and there being better directions god could give)

                                  replyreport
                                  1. 76

                                     DoubleScorpionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                     @ Cranford
                                     
                                     When you get a Chance...Read Exodus 34:8-28
                                     
                                     Pay close attention to the last line of Verse 28. It will give you something new for the Ten Commandment Debates.

                                     replyreport
14. 50

    paarsurreyposted 13 years ago

    Bible is not the inspired Word of the Creator God; the Christians are mistaken.

    replyreport
    1. 81

       aka-djposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       As declared by  muslim!
       
       Does that make him right?
       
       NO!
       
       

       replyreport
    2. 74

       Caleb DRCposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       paarsurrey, How do you handle Tim.3:16 with John1:1--5?

       replyreport
       1. 50

          paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          What is the source of John writing above words?

          replyreport
15. 73

    Kangaroo_Jaseposted 13 years ago

    Did anyone bring hot coffee?

    replyreport
    1. 74

       Caleb DRCposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Hot and strong coffee!  There is a suggestion I can get on board with.

       replyreport
16. 50

    paarsurreyposted 13 years ago

    "How do Christians know the Bible is the inspired Word of God?"
    
    They don't know; they just declare that it is an inspired Word of God while it is neither from the Creator God nor written by Jesus or dictated by him.

    replyreport
17. 60

    Kyle Payneposted 13 years ago

    The answer to your question lies within faith, it is beyond reason.

    replyreport
    1. 58

       A Troubled Manposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Faith is based on not knowing or understanding, hence faith is not beyond reason, if falls short of reason.

       replyreport
       1. 81

          aka-djposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Faith, in the case of believing the testimony of witnesses, is fully within all logic and reason.
          It is a matter of trust and integrity.
          Trust on the part of the hearer, and
          integrity of the witness.
          
          The legal system uses it all the time.
          
          
          So, yet again your definitions are wrong! (Surprise surprise! )

          replyreport
          1. 58

             A Troubled Manposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             Yes, and we have weeded out those testimonies that are so obviously lacking in any logic or reason, we find them to also be devoid of trust and integrity.
             
             
             
             Please do go into a court room and argue your case for the existence of God based on "testimonies" and we'll watch as you're laughed out of the room.

             replyreport
             1. 68

                Michele Travisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                But won't that be after you put your hand on a bible and" swear to tell the truth the whole truth so help me God"?  the court room has people do that you know.  Or maybe you don't know that.

                replyreport
                1. 59

                   Druid Dudeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                   Have you ever met the witnesses? Can you attest that they are who they say they are? Some pretty fantastic stuff going on there. No one has been able to duplicate without trickery any biblical miracle. The chain of evidence has been lost. Luke Skywalker says Darth Vader is his dad, but can we believe EVERYTHING we read...OR NOT?

                   replyreport
                   1. 59

                      Druid Dudeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                      Inspired...God said so!

                      replyreport
                2. 58

                   A Troubled Manposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                   People will lie regardless of that futile gesture. Honest people would not need to do that.

                   replyreport
18. 63

    Prettypanther88posted 13 years ago

    Christians just know, it is faith! You have to believe even if you can't see it. Everyone should have something that they believe in and hopefully their beliefs set guides them to be a good person!

    replyreport
    1. 60

       mischeviousmeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       What if I believe nothing, does this make me a bad person? Laws are not belief, they are guidelines and then, there is also moral laws that we each know to be true. How does one explain this?

       replyreport
    2. 58

       A Troubled Manposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Why? Don't you think people can figure out for themselves how to be good people?

       replyreport