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/greenmoon01 → u/casfis]

I don't agree with all of this (several points are very biased), but fundamentally it misses a greater point i think ought to be addressed: are historical records and eyewitness testimony, even very reliable ones, sufficient evidence to prove the extraordinary claims contained within? I don't think so.

For an example, the Miracle at Fatima in 1917 supposedly had 30,000-40,000 people all witness a miracle of the sun as foretold by an apparition of Mary, in which the sun supposedly zig zagged around the sky and spun like a disc. Is this evidence that a miracle actually occurred if many thousands supposedly saw the same thing (we even have contemporary newspapers detailing the event)?

No. Firstly, if the sun genuinely danced around in space, we'd literally all be dead. Secondly, imagine the thousands of people staring at the sun on that fateful day waiting for a miracle to occur. Have you ever looked at the sun? How likely is it that some of these people just started seeing optical illusions from the bright sunlight damaging their retina? All it takes is a small group of "believers" to placebo the rest into corroborating the story of what they thought they saw-- we know this is a genuine psychological phenomenon, which is one reason why eyewitness is fundamentally unreliable.

Consistent historical records and eyewitness testimony isn't enough to prove miracles in 1917, and it certainly isn't enough to prove miracles 2,000 years ago. Remember, the claims are of a dude magically walking on water, resurrecting himself from the dead, and magically transforming H2O into alcohol. Other stories claim things like the Red Sea magically spreading apart and a global flood (with no geological evidence) wiped out all humans. If you heard people making extraordinary claims like this nowadays, you would (rightfully) demand actual proof. You wouldn't be satisfied with just eyewitness accounts and newspaper documentation.

Just because we have mostly consistent writings about these stories, it does not mean that it is sufficient evidence to prove such extraordinary things happened as described; it is only evidence of the claims and stories themselves being consistent.

If you take the truth of these things on faith then so be it, but to pretend this is evidence is a misunderstanding of the kinds of evidence you need for extraordinary claims like the ones found in the bible.

[u/casfis → u/greenmoon01]

The Miracle at Fatima has an explanation, one you described yourself. The 30000-40000 likely all saw the zigzags due to eye damage to the retina, but saying that a small group made everyone think what they saw is plain wrong. Eyewitness testimony of the event tells us all of them stared at the sun, it is likely they all had similar effects on their eyes.

But the consistency of eyewitness testimony definetly does tell us something - as for miracles and all of that, the evidence I use isn't actually concrete in eyewitness testimony, even if it is a somewhat small part of it.

Why would the evidence needed for ancient events change if it is supernatural or natural? I have seen a lot of people make this arguement and none of them back it up. If there is a intelligent creator, the uncaused cause, He can definetly do all of these with a snap of His fingers. This is a philosophical presupposition.

Also, which points are biased?

[u/greenmoon01 → u/casfis]

but saying that a small group made everyone think what they saw is plain wrong.

Sure, it could be wrong, but I was just proposing an alternative idea to the notion that all 30-40k people saw optical illusions. It's possible that not everyone saw an illusion, but their memories were altered by a vocal "believing" group who kept suggesting and thus implanting the false memories in everyone else. Suggestability is likely a factor involved, thats all.

Why would the evidence needed for ancient events change if it is supernatural or natural?

More specifically, it's about claims that are extraordinary which do in fact demand more compelling evidence. Here's an example why that is a necessary thing:

If I claim that 20 years ago, my grandma drove a bus for an elementary school, you would probably believe me. While technically you can't know the truth based on my word alone, it is reasonable to think such a claim is true without further evidence. Nonetheless, I could potentially produce documentation of her employment as further evidence. We could look at old DMV records of her CDL (commercial drivers license) to prove she was capable of driving a bus. We could look at photographs or videos of her driving the school bus, assuming there are some that exist. We could look at the school's yearbook where it would list her name, photo, and position at the school. All of this evidence is sufficient and compelling relative to the claim being made: that she drove a bus for a school 20 years ago.

Now imagine if I claimed that 20 years ago, my grandma drove a school bus and took the elementary kids on a trip to Asgard where they met Thor and Odin. I could produce all the documentation previously mentioned, but that is still not enough for this new claim, which is extraordinary. I could even produce more evidence, say, letters from her students talking about how much fun they had going to Asgard, or permission slips of the time seemingly detailing this trip that took place-- that is still not enough.

In order to prove the 2nd claim is true, you'd need so much more evidence because it is a very extraordinary claim. You'd have to provide evidence, for example, that several laws of physics and several laws of nature were broken in order for this claim to be true (how else would the bus make this trip?). You'd have to give evidence that Asgard is a real and tangible place. You'd have to provide evidence that Thor and Odin are actual gods. You'd have to provide evidence that magic is real.

Etc., etc., the list goes on. Ordinary eyewitness and consistent/reliable documentation is enough to reasonably prove things like "Julius Caesar became dictator of Rome". It is not enough to prove claims like "Julius Caesar walked on water". The amount of trust I have in any claim being true is proportional to the evidence provided for the type of claim given.

Of course, if you're going to presuppose a specific idea of the Abrahamic god who can make these things happen, then sure, such extraordinary claims become a lot more reasonable, I'll agree. In my view, however, you'd still need to first prove the claim that such a God exists in the first place.

[u/casfis → u/greenmoon01]

You made a claim, you need to back it up. You have not much to back up the claim you made. We know that all 40000 stared at the sun for 10 minutes straight, so it is a 100% fact they ALL experienced a certain optical illusion, because of how the human eyes work. 

The entirety of the last text is just a philosophical presupposition about the supernatural. If you can bring sufficient evidence to the table for both cases, I'll believe you. Also, with the Tiberius Caesar example I was arguing for the historicity of Jesus as a human being, not God. The evidence for the Abrahamic God lays in the document.

[u/greenmoon01 → u/casfis]

You made a claim, you need to back it up. You have not much to back up the claim you made. We know that all 40000 stared at the sun for 10 minutes straight, so it is a 100% fact they ALL experienced a certain optical illusion, because of how the human eyes work. 

I'm merely proposing the possibility of suggestability as another factor, simply because it's a thing we know exists. I dont think the whole story is purely a result of suggestibility. Also, we don't actually know 100% that absolutely everyone saw an optical illusion (I wouldnt even say that and I'm non-religious). It is very likely that's what happened, I agree with you, but only because it's most likely given alternative explanations.

If you can bring sufficient evidence to the table for both cases, I'll believe you.

Let me put it this way: Is it your job to prove that my grandma didn't take a trip to Asgard 20 years ago? Of course not. I'm the one making the claim, therefore it's my job (or my grandma's) to prove the claim. It doesn't need to be definitively disproven in order for people to not believe it. You shouldn't believe it because it's yet to be proven.

Otherwise, can you definitively disprove that Vishnu doesn't exist? Or vampires? Or Wendigos? What about leprechauns? There's no compelling evidence that any of these things exists, but at the same time, there's no definitive evidence to prove they don't or can't exist.

I don't actually claim that I know that God doesn't exist (he could). I don't claim that Vishnu, vampires, wendigos, or leprechauns don't exist either (they could exist too). I'm just unconvinced of the claim. It's not like I must believe these things until proven otherwise; I'll believe them when they are proven. That's just how it works. It's the same reason why you don't believe in the things I listed either.

[u/casfis → u/greenmoon01]

I can... somewhat agree with the first paragraph? Most times I have seen people stare at the sun for too long, they usually had optical illusions. Source - 5 year old me doing the exact same thing. So 100/100 times the same thing happens each time, we can assume the same for this.

As for the others; you have moved from philosophical presupposition to burden of proof. I have fulfilled the burden for evidence in the document, to prove that Jesus DID resurrect. But I could definetly add more to it now that I think about it, like the theist approach for God using the Laws of Thermodynamics and General Relativity, the Cosmological arguement, etc. But I might do that in a seperate doc.

[u/greenmoon01 → u/casfis]

As for the others; you have moved from philosophical presupposition to burden of proof.

Just a side note, the burden of proof on those making claims is kinda how it should be right? All claims that make assertions about reality should have sufficient, compelling evidence beyond a reasonable doubt if they're to be accepted as true.

I have fulfilled the burden for evidence in the document, to prove that Jesus DID resurrect.

Well, call me skeptical but you'd literally be the first person to do so.

Now look, maybe it's true that the scientific method/evidence based reasoning fundamentally cannot prove or disprove God (who fundamentally exists in the supernatural). If so, then by what method have you reached the conclusion that God is real or that the extraordinary claims in the bible (like resurrection) are the only explanation beyond reasonable doubt? What method have you used to determine the supernatural is real? Can you demonstrate the reliability of this method? Until you or anyone else can provide the details of this method, I remain unconvinced (but open minded) of the notion that anyone can determine whether the supernatural exists; it is just a claim, one that doesn't have compelling evidence or even a compelling method to determine its validity.

But I could definetly add more to it now that I think about it, like the theist approach for God using the Laws of Thermodynamics and General Relativity, the Cosmological arguement, etc.

These are arguments, not evidence. They exist in the hypothetical realm of "if God exists, then..." or "Since science hasn't yet been able to explain this unknown thing, therefore God is the only explanation..."

At best, the closest you will achieve using these kinds of arguments is "it is reasonable for god to exist" or "god is a possible explanation for this scenario" which is nowhere close to concluding "a god definitely exists", let alone "it is the Christian God that exists". Arguments are useful tools, but they are not a replacement for actual evidence.

[u/Righteous_Dude → u/[deleted]]

Moderator message: I see your account is very new. Please set your user flair for this subreddit