Evidences that support the reliability of the Bible

Status
Not open for further replies.
stu said:
Lol everyone has some atheism.
You not believing in Good1's God is like those who don't believe in your God. Basically that's what it is to be atheist!

“Atheism leaves a man to sense, to philosophy, to natural piety, to laws, to reputation; all of which may be guides to an outward moral virtue, even if religion vanished ....”
Sir Francis Bacon​
More...
LOL

Sir Francis Bacon also wrote, "I HAD rather believe all the fables in the Legend, and the Talmud, and the Alcoran, than that this universal frame is without a mind. And therefore, God never wrought miracle, to convince atheism, because his ordinary works convince it."

But my trust is not in Sir Francis Bacon or his sayings. My trust is not in Don Stewart either. But since Don Stewart wrote something that I believe agrees with the Bible, I'm posting it here:
https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_293.cfm

The Bible says that God has revealed Himself to humanity in four different ways. They include (1) Nature (2) Our conscience (3) Jesus Christ (4) The Bible.​

1. Nature Has Revealed God​

The universe with its vastness and complexity gives testimony to God and His glory. The Bible says:​

When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have ordained, what is man that you are mindful of him (Psalm 8:3,4).​

Yet the testimony of nature only tells us about God in a limited way. The Book of Job states this fact.​

He binds up the water in his thick clouds, yet the clouds are not broken under it. He covers the face of his throne, and spreads his cloud over it . . . Indeed these are the mere edges of his ways, and how small a whisper we hear of him! But the thunder of his power who can understand (Job 26:8,9,14).​

There Is No Excuse For Anyone​

But that which we can know about God leaves us without any excuses.​

For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse (Romans 1:20).​

Therefore the Bible says that God has revealed Himself through nature.​

2. Our Conscience Tells Us That God Exists​

God has also revealed Himself through the spirit, or mind, of humanity. All societies have a certain moral code built into them in which stealing, lying, murder, and such are universally condemned. Humanity's sense of right and wrong testifies to God's existence. The Apostle Paul wrote:​

For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things contained in the law, these although not having the law are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them (Romans 2:14,15).​

3. Jesus Christ Has Revealed God​

God has also revealed Himself to the world through the person of Jesus Christ.​

God, who at various times and in different ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by his Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds (Hebrews 1:1,2).​

Jesus Himself testified that He had come to earth to reveal the will of God the Father.​

All things have been delivered to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and he to whom the Son wills to reveal him (Matthew 11:27).​

4. The Scriptures Testify Of God's Existence​

God also has revealed Himself through the written Word, the Scriptures. The Bible is God's revelation of Himself to humankind. The Scripture says of itself:​

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof for correction, for instruction in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16).​

The Bible is humankind's source for the knowledge of God and His plan.​

God Has Given Ample Opportunity For Belief​

God has given humanity ample opportunity to know about Him by means of nature, the human conscience, Jesus Christ, and through the Bible. Humanity has no excuse whatsoever for rejecting God.​

Summary​

God has revealed Himself to the human race in four major ways: nature, the human conscience, the Person of Jesus Christ, and finally in the Bible. Each of these methods testifies to his existence. Humanity has no excuse whatsoever for rejecting him.​
 
Did Paul stand before Roman emperor Caesar?


There were lots of dialogues about Moses and Abraham and David and .... dated tens of thousands of years ago.


How about the dialogues between Paul and Caesar which happened
just 2 thousand years ago?
If it is not in the bible, then where can we get it?
 
Last edited:
tomorton said:
This thread is a slightly puzzling idea in the first place. I thought the idea was that Christians accept the Bible (and Christian teachings in general) on faith. I hadn't realised the faith was based on a rational examination of archaeological, witness and anecdotal evidence, leading to the choice of this particular religion over any other particular religion: that would seem to be the opposite of faith.
More...
%%
They do; but its provable as good RE title deed.
Faith is the title deed=Hebrew11;1 Amplified Bible........................................................
 
studentofthemarkets said:
Thanks for posting something that wasn't blasphemous or disrepectful, for once.
More...

You have no idea just how blasphemous is Judeo-Christanity in its representation of Good.


. In the telling of a story about the origins of man, the status quo of man, and the future of man, it does indeed insult the actual Good. This blasphemy is technically not worse than the standard blasphemy that is ongoing ever since "the beginning" of all things mankind and his surrounds. Blasphemy can only be worse if it delays awakening longer than the average insulting circumstance. If i could overcome it in a few years of actual seeking (the truth), perhaps it is not that potent.

Delays are measured in life-death cycles. The opposite of delays are miracles. So yah, it would be a miracle if a Judeo-Christian awakens from the deep sleep of a dead Christ. Til then, about 99.9% of everything a Christian does, believes and thinks (dreams) is insulting to what is actually Good. Eating, breathing, and dying are all blasphemous, btw.

The good news is Good is not actually harmed by blasphemy, given what does not exist (mankind) cannot hurt what does exist (Good). Blasphemy hurts the blasphemer such that what you do to Good, you do to yourself. This is because every blasphemer started out as the Good Self. A blasphemer is a psychological separation (a trick of mind) that re-identifies, re-fashions, re-defines, or otherwise deems (thinks, believes) Good to be something Good is not.

Everything Good is not (not Good) is blasphemous. A blasphemer never really exists except in the fragile bubble of his own beliefs. The blasphemer is a kind of lie, told to oneself, that takes on a life of its own, the more details are added to the lie. The comparable metaphor is dreaming, which is a trick of the mind, whereupon many details are embellished into circumstances that are simply not true. In a dream, one can lie to oneself about who or what one is. Worse, there is zero recollection about how a dream begins, at least from within rhe dream. So it is, man has no clue about his own genesis, taking it for granted by a higher power. If man really knew anything about his origins, he would soon be awakening, because knowledge, of anything, is antithetical to sleeping/dreaming. Dreaming relies upon faith, the antitheses of knowledge.

Thus, the story that all sin can be forgiven except blasphemy against the holy spirit is itself blasphemous as it further misrepresents Good. For sin to be unforgivable, it has to exist...it has to actually be happening. The idea that Good must aknowledge sin/blasphemy is itself a sin. Thus, forgiveness is actually a function incumbent upon sinners/blasphemers. In a worst case scenario a blasphemer could drive himself so deeply asleep he would never figure out how/why to forgive. In a bad case, a blasphemer would continue experiencing the sufferings inherent in blasphemy for thousands of life+death cycles over many millenium of "time", which itself is a kind of blasphemy.

Judeo-Christians dont understand how the origins of mankind are the result of blasphemy against the Good Self. If they did understand, they would be on the verge of awakening. Forgiveness reverses the origin of mankind by reversing the mental trick that seems to provide mankind some space to exist. As such, forgiveness is also a kind of mental trick. To forgive, you must be honest about the status quo, honest about sin. What takes away the sins of the world is truth/honesty about the sinners circumstances. Good does not forgive because Good has never been dishonest about Good. Nor has Good ever acknowledged the existence of the sinful circumstances that blasphemers believe in, such as pain, and death/change.

So, are there some kinds of blasphemy that blasphemers blast, that are ultimately unforgivable? No. Are there types of blasphemy more potent to prolong pain and suffering through many life-death cycles? Im not sure. But there are mutually exclusive concepts. As long as Judeo-Christians believe certain things, the blasphemy inherent in the faith in those circumstances could prevent them from ever discovering how/what/why to forgive. Without the forgiveness there is no way to re-deem ones notions of what is, or who is Good. Continuous wrong-think (deeming, believing) about Good is what unforgiveness is all about. Its you, the blasphemer, which does not forgive.

Forgiveness is a mental trick blasphemers must employ to overcome the mental tricks that seem to give blasphemers existence out of an original "void" (of nothingness) to "begin" with. Forgiveness returns sinners/blasphemers back to the "void" (nothingness) from which they came. Forgiveness is about re-deeming, re-thinking ones entire existence. This is what redemption is all about. Damnation is about deeming dishonestly. Redemption is about deeming honestly. All deeming and re-deeming is about Good.

For example, death is blasphemous. You could never believe Good could die, and be re-deemed,/forgiven. Your mis-deeming of Good is what prevents your redemption/resurrection (awakening from deep sleep). Its your own (as the blasphemer) deeming that Good includes death/change that prevents you from avoiding death/change.

Another example, forgiveness redefines (re-deems) death by comparing to something less ominous like sleep. Forgiveness can then further redefine sleep in such a way that the fear of awakening is released.
 
Last edited:
Good1 said:
You have no idea just how blasphemous is Judeo-Christanity in its representation of Good.


. In the telling of a story about the origins of man, the status quo of man, and the future of man, it does indeed insult the actual Good. This blasphemy is technically not worse than the standard blasphemy that is ongoing ever since "the beginning" of all things mankind and his surrounds. Blasphemy can only be worse if it delays awakening longer than the average insulting circumstance. If i could overcome it in a few years of actual seeking (the truth), perhaps it is not that potent.

Delays are measured in life-death cycles. The opposite of delays are miracles. So yah, it would be a miracle if a Judeo-Christian awakens from the deep sleep of a dead Christ. Til then, about 99.9% of everything a Christian does, believes and thinks (dreams) is insulting to what is actually Good. Eating, breathing, and dying are all blasphemous, btw.

The good news is Good is not actually harmed by blasphemy, given what does not exist (mankind) cannot hurt what does exist (Good). Blasphemy hurts the blasphemer such that what you do to Good, you do to yourself. This is because every blasphemer started out as the Good Self. A blasphemer is a psychological separation (a trick of mind) that re-identifies, re-fashions, re-defines, or otherwise deems (thinks, believes) Good to be something Good is not.

Everything Good is not (not Good) is blasphemous. A blasphemer never really exists except in the fragile bubble of his own beliefs. The blasphemer is a kind of lie, told to oneself, that takes on a life of its own, the more details are added to the lie. The comparable metaphor is dreaming, which is a trick of the mind, whereupon many details are embellished into circumstances that are simply not true. In a dream, one can lie to oneself about who or what one is. Worse, there is zero recollection about how a dream begins, at least from within rhe dream. So it is, man has no clue about his own genesis, taking it for granted by a higher power. If man really knew anything about his origins, he would soon be awakening, because knowledge, of anything, is antithetical to sleeping/dreaming. Dreaming relies upon faith, the antitheses of knowledge.

Thus, the story that all sin can be forgiven except blasphemy against the holy spirit is itself blasphemous as it further misrepresents Good. For sin to be unforgivable, it has to exist...it has to actually be happening. The idea that Good must aknowledge sin/blasphemy is itself a sin. Thus, forgiveness is actually a function incumbent upon sinners/blasphemers. In a worst case scenario a blasphemer could drive himself so deeply asleep he would never figure out how/why to forgive. In a bad case, a blasphemer would continue experiencing the sufferings inherent in blasphemy for thousands of life+death cycles over many millenium of "time", which itself is a kind of blasphemy.

Judeo-Christians dont understand how the origins of mankind are the result of blasphemy against the Good Self. If they did understand, they would be on the verge of awakening. Forgiveness reverses the origin of mankind by reversing the mental trick that seems to provide mankind some space to exist. As such, forgiveness is also a kind of mental trick. To forgive, you must be honest about the status quo, honest about sin. What takes away the sins of the world is truth/honesty about the sinners circumstances. Good does not forgive because Good has never been dishonest about Good. Nor has Good ever acknowledged the existence of the sinful circumstances that blasphemers believe in, such as pain, and death/change.

So, are there some kinds of blasphemy that blasphemers blast, that are ultimately unforgivable? No. Are there types of blasphemy more potent to prolong pain and suffering through many life-death cycles? Im not sure. But there are mutually exclusive concepts. As long as Judeo-Christians believe certain things, the blasphemy inherent in the faith in those circumstances could prevent them from ever discovering how/what/why to forgive. Without the forgiveness there is no way to re-deem ones notions of what is, or who is Good. Continuous wrong-think (deeming, believing) about Good is what unforgiveness is all about. Its you, the blasphemer, which does not forgive.

Forgiveness is a mental trick blasphemers must employ to overcome the mental tricks that seem to give blasphemers existence out of an original "void" (of nothingness) to "begin" with. Forgiveness returns sinners/blasphemers back to the "void" (nothingness) from which they came. Forgiveness is about re-deeming, re-thinking ones entire existence. This is what redemption is all about. Damnation is about deeming dishonestly. Redemption is about deeming honestly. All deeming and re-deeming is about Good.

For example, death is blasphemous. You could never believe Good could die, and be re-deemed,/forgiven. Your mis-deeming of Good is what prevents your redemption/resurrection (awakening from deep sleep). Its your own (as the blasphemer) deeming that Good includes death/change that prevents you from avoiding death/change.

Another example, forgiveness redefines (re-deems) death by comparing to something less ominous like sleep. Forgiveness can then further redefine sleep in such a way that the fear of awakening is released.
More...
I don't like having you post on my threads. I guess I feel a little possessive of them, since I started them, and I'd like to control the direction of the content of them, somewhat. Would you please not post anymore on this thread, or my other 2 threads? Could we move this discussion to a new thread, and I might consider responding to you on it. You might not like how I choose to respond, but I'll look at what you post and try think of some sort of reply.
 
maxinger said:
Did Paul stand before Roman emperor Caesar?


There were lots of dialogues about Moses and Abraham and David and .... dated tens of thousands of years ago.


How about the dialogues between Paul and Caesar which happened
just 2 thousand years ago?
If it is not in the bible, then where can we get it?
More...
Hi. I apologize for the late response. I've been thinking about not keeping this thread up.

I am no expert in extra biblical sources that offer support to the Biblical account. I simply don't know the answer to your question.

I do know that having turned to Christ as my Savior and having become one of His own, that He has used the Bible to speak to my heart on pretty much a daily basis and that I have come to recognize it's trustworthiness in every aspect, as well as it's worthiness of my full allegience to the message of the Bible for my life.

In other words, when the Holy Spirit opens one's understanding to the Bible, one comes to an understanding of God that is based on the Bible, not man's faulty historical records.
 
studentofthemarkets said:
I don't like having you post on my threads. I guess I feel a little possessive of them, since I started them, and I'd like to control the direction of the content of them, somewhat. Would you please not post anymore on this thread, or my other 2 threads? Could we move this discussion to a new thread, and I might consider responding to you on it. You might not like how I choose to respond, but I'll look at what you post and try think of some sort of reply.
More...

Take a look at my new thread, "Faith is a sin...". It doesn't matter to me where you reply. I do agree with the concept of categorizing themes to threads so that the organization makes them more easy to follow and respond. I suppose what i'm saying is i won't be ignored. So if you won't respond in a thread/theme i initiate, i might well respond in one of yours. I am not so much a believer in thread ownership as thread organization. To the extend that each of your threads ignores the truth, so-to-speak, they have the same theme to me. I am able to reply accordingly, within the sub-theme you've made up, or within the macro-theme each thread really maintains. People will be reading what i have to say about the truth. There is your opportunity to dissuade them, if that's what you want to do, guiding them to whatever notions you wish to share instead.
 
Good1 said:
Take a look at my new thread, "Faith is a sin...". It doesn't matter to me where you reply. I do agree with the concept of categorizing themes to threads so that the organization makes them more easy to follow and respond. I suppose what i'm saying is i won't be ignored. So if you won't respond in a thread/theme i initiate, i might well respond in one of yours. I am not so much a believer in thread ownership as thread organization. To the extend that each of your threads ignores the truth, so-to-speak, they have the same theme to me. I am able to reply accordingly, within the sub-theme you've made up, or within the macro-theme each thread really maintains. People will be reading what i have to say about the truth. There is your opportunity to dissuade them, if that's what you want to do, guiding them to whatever notions you wish to share instead.
More...
Well, I was done being in the religious section, so I wasn't exactly ignoring you. I was ignoring everyone.

But sure, how about we keep it to both of those 2 threads? You can post on my new one, made for you, I don't mind. And I'll post sometimes on your new one. If we keep to those 2, I'll like that better.

Thanks
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top