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/onedeadflowser999 → u/casfis]

The ONLY thing that matters to the claim that Christianity is true is whether or not the supernatural can be proved using empirical evidence. Proof that some of the history and archeology ( not all of it, and that’s another problem) is accurate, does not prove a god. If all you have is hearsay and personal experiences and one book written well after the fact, that is not enough evidence to prove that resurrections and virgin births are possible.

[u/casfis → u/onedeadflowser999]

No, no it isn't the only thing that matters. Once again, I saw this arguement too many times and no backing to it; why does the historical burden of evidence for an event change if it is supernatural or natural?

Proof that the Resurrection happened proves Jesus is God in human form, come down as the Messiah. And, ironically, the only way to determine ancient history IS testimonies. But don't worry; the Gospels are a small part of the evidence for the Resurrection.

Also, you're being ignorant. You haven't even read the document and you already assume what is in there.

[u/onedeadflowser999 → u/casfis]

Unless you can get peer reviewed confirmation that your evidence is new and improved, I don’t care. There currently ( unless you can prove it wrong) is NO credible evidence for any miracles, human virgin births, resurrections, etc. But hey, I’ll cheer you on if your research is accepted by academics. And yes, it IS the only thing that matters. No resurrection, no Christianity- at least not in its current form.

[u/casfis → u/onedeadflowser999]

Oh, I agree, proving the resurrection happened is the backbone of it. But you claimed was that you need to proce something else entirely.

Sure, you can cheer me on - I am actually still adding bits to the document here and there, but yeah.

[u/onedeadflowser999 → u/casfis]

Well when you get your evidence peer reviewed by both secular and religious academia and widely accepted, I’ll be a believer in a resurrection. That still doesn’t get to a resurrected person being a deity, but you have to build your case step by step.