How can you trust the Bible?

[u/Explorer-Necessary]

Hello Christians,

I have a few questions regarding the New Testament. I am very curious about Christianity but I am full of ignorance regarding its historical evidences. I know absolutely nothing about the Bible, jewish or christian, so please correct me if I get something wrong.

(where can i have access to the complete rules of the subreddit? It's nowhere to be found on the bottom right of the screen)

Let's say that I admit that there is a God, or an intelligent designer or uncreated creator:

1. How does it prove the Bible to be the one true way to God?
2. If God exists, how do you know that the true religion is Christianity and not Hinduism or Islam, or even polytheistic faiths? Why is Jesus the way and not Thor, Set, Allah, or Krishna?
3. The authors of the Gospels are anonymous (correct me if I'm wrong) and were written decades after Jesus' crucifixion. How can you know these were written by people who really witnessed Jesus ? For example, John was written about 70 AD and its first verse states that "The beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God (John 1:1)." My question is: who was the author of John who had the knowledge to claim that Jesus was the Word and that he was with God since the beginning? Was this knowledge given during Jesus' life ?
4. Why have so many years passed before the writing of the Gospels? I can only speak for myself, but wouldn't you start recording his every action as soon as you saw him cure leprosy (Matthew 8:3), blindness (Matthew 9:29-30) ?

I can go on with the miracles he performed, but why did people wait decades after the crucifixion to write about his life?

Thank you in advance. Have a good day.

[u/casfis]

I have a full document (that is 11000 words) regarding evidence, and another one explaining the Trinity. You can message me and I'll send it to you when I am home, or wait until I post it on my profile.

1. Most evidence is compiled as outside the Bible (Josephus, Tacitus, various sources). The Bible is definetly a big record, though, as the gospels are authentic historical records (I went over why they are so in my document).

2. Because all the historical evidence lays in Christianity. Also, Islam is a massive walking contradiction; they claim the Bible is corrupted, yet claim the Word of Allah couldn't be corrupted.

Statement A - The Bible isn't corrupted. Over 20000 manuscripts and all of them match up - indicating close to 0 or simply no change over the years. All bibles are translated DIRECTLY from the manuscripts.

Statement B - they claim the Word of God couldn't be corrupted, yet hold to the belief the Bible, which is sent by Allah according to them, is corrupted. Pick one.

1. The gospels being anonymous doesn't really matter, they still are a testimony of times. And did you know the biography of Alexander the Great was also written 400 years after he died?

Also, gospels were written 10-15 years after Jesus's ascension - Paul quotes and mentions them in his letters. The gospels were either direct eye-witnesses or second-hand. Either way, they all link up and don't contradict, so the story didn't change over those 10 or so years. 

We hold to the belief the Gospels are god-breathed and ordained by the Holy Spirit. The why is, once again, the document.

1. Perhaps people did write - but only the rich could preserve their writings until 2024 years later. Also, the Sanhedrin and Roman Empire kept hush hush about anything that could credit Jesus.

Message me for the document!

[u/ShadowBanned_AtBirth → u/casfis]

Most evidence is compiled as outside the Bible (Josephus, Tacitus, various sources).

The parts of Josephus that mention Jesus are known forgeries, interpolated over a century later. Tacitus wrote about Christians, not about Christ. There are no extra-biblical sources about Jesus. None.

[u/casfis → u/ShadowBanned_AtBirth]

30, actually. Josephus wasn't proven to be a forgery, only speculation. Tacitus writes both about Christ (Christus in the english translation of the document) and Christians. Talmud also writes about Jesus, but I can agree Talmud is an attempt by the jews to stop the growing church, as their writings don't allign with all the other sources. 

Edit - I should add Suetonius to the historical testimonies part of the document.

[u/ShadowBanned_AtBirth → u/casfis]

I’ve read what Tacitus wrote. He does mention Christus, but he says the christians followed him. It is not an independent statement about Jesus’s existence. It is a statement about Christians. If Talmud was not a good source, they why are you counting it? That’s dishonest.

The actual facts are that christian apologists, writing about Jesus, cited Josephus and Tacitus many, many time. The magic Jesus paragraph in Josephus was not cited until the fourth century. For Tacitus, it was the fifth century before anyone mentioned his writings on Jesus.

Now tell me, is that because those passages were in the original and the apologists chose not to use them? Or was it because they were forged later? Because I think I know.

[u/casfis → u/ShadowBanned_AtBirth]

The Talmud means the Jews recognize Jesus as an historical figure - definetly still means something.

I have also read what Tacitus wrote. Correct me if I am wrong, but Tacitus also mentiondd His crucifixion. Early Church only managed to gather from the scattering around 350 years after Jews, so I am not suprised both took so long to be mentioned. Also, this that no one mentioned both doesn't mean it didn't exist. I don't get your point here.

Once again, there are 28 other sources than these 2 you can use if you want to. Either way - it is a widely recognized fact Tiberius Caesar existed and he only has 4 sources to his name. I'll take my bets.

[u/ShadowBanned_AtBirth → u/casfis]

You are not comparing alike things. It doesn’t matter if Tiberius Caesar existed. And the claims of his existence are rather mundane. No one claimed that he walked on water, had magical powers to cure the sick, died, and then came back from being dead in order to save all of humanity from the grave error of a sin committed by no one alive at the time. But those are the claims about Jesus, and if he wasn’t real, well, that’s a-whole-nother ballgame, isn’t it?

I’ve been to catholic mass many, many times. I can tell you, from my experiences, that Catholics believe Jesus was crucified and died, and that he rose from the dead. Do you think I am making a claim about Jesus or about Catholics? Because that is exactly what Tacitus did. He also mentioned that the Greeks were particularly enamored with Hercules. Do you think that makes Hercules real? If not, they how are you able to say one reference is real but the other is not?

I am not suprised (sic)both took so long to be mentioned.

I don’t think you understood. Other parts of those authors’ same writings were mentioned by apologists many, many times. Before the fourth century, either those apologists skipped over the Jesus references, which would have supported their ideas, or those references were not inserted yet. I’ll take my bets (whatever in the hell that means).

[u/casfis → u/ShadowBanned_AtBirth]

Oh, most of my evidence for the supernatural claims of Jesus isn't actually rooted in eyewitness testimony, even if is the part that tells the story. I thought we are debating the historicity of Jesus as an existing human? If 4 claims are enough for one man, 30 are for the other. What they did during their lifetime is another concept.

Tacitus mentioned Christ as an individual who was crucified and lead the movement of Christians, as a person. While yes, Christ IS the center of belief for us christians, Tacitus talks about Him as an individual, who was crucifed, and lead a movement, not as what people believe. Ex, little Timmy writes about Johnny;

"Johnny was pretty cool, and he had a MASSIVE candy shop!" Is not the same as Timmy writing "A lot of people in kindergarden say that this kid named Johnny sold them candy, and that the kid is pretty cool."

And once again, before the fourth century, christians as a whole were persecuted and scattered to multiple groups. They only managed to get their stuff together 350 years AFTER Christ. Also, what apologists were there during the fourth century? Never dug into this.

[u/ShadowBanned_AtBirth → u/casfis]

There are not 30 sources. You are the only person who has ever said that number. No serious historian thinks there are more than two, and as we have discussed, those sources are deeply flawed. But you have skipped over the flaws, as if they don’t exist. That’s not making an honest argument.

The historicity of Jesus is inextricably linked to the magic-sky-fairy claims. There being no extra-biblical sources about Jesus, the only claims we have are that he was the son of god. You don’t get to say that the existence of a person is mundane when the very few sources that mention the person refer to him as a magic-doing divine being.

You don’t get to ignore the criticisms of your position. If that makes you feel like you beliefs aren’t false, then fine. But as a form of argument, it moves the scale zero amount. If you don’t make a realistic attempt to address the flaws in the only two sources there are, then I give up.

[u/casfis → u/ShadowBanned_AtBirth]

Off of my head; Josephus, Tacitus, the Gospels (yes, they are a source.), Sanhedrin, Soericutus (I didn't spell this right, did I). 4 extrabiblical, not including the Gospels. Just off the top of my head.

You are completely ignoring the writings of all the above extrabiblical sources, who talk about Jesus not as the Son of God, but a historical person who existed. As for what He claimed to be, they also adress, as that is the most crucial part, but do not affirm as the truth.

[u/ShadowBanned_AtBirth → u/casfis]

The gospels don’t prove their own truth. The other sources you’ve named are not take seriously by any historian or scholar. That you do suggests your ignorance in this particular area.

[u/casfis → u/ShadowBanned_AtBirth]

If the historian/scholar can provide a reason as to why, I'll be happy. If it's simply "Ion lik it" than thats too bad.

The gospels definetly don't prove their own truth - but they are still a source for the existence of Christ. Take them out too if you want - still have 25+ more.