It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Real Question. Why do you trust the Holy Bible?

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 09:25 AM
I would like to know why Christians trust the Holy Bible? If you have read it, you must see that the God in the Old, is not the Same God portrayed by Christ in the New.

Also, most of you know that the Bible you call the "True Word of God" today is a book put together, changed and edited by many men, Kings, Popes and who knows who else?

Why do you trust these men? Why should I believe what they decided (as men) to be in our current Bible is the truth? Were these men inspired by God or unacknowledged messengers of God (King James?)?

I do believe in god I just no longer trust the Bible having grown wiser and learned truths of its origins so I am interested why you trust what your told by Men (Preacher, Pastors, Parents etc...) to be the truth of what god is and what god wants of us?

You could substitute the religious books of nearly any religion and ask this question. Go ahead and describe your belief in those books as well, rather than proclaim them as truth, because there origins are equally dubious.

[edit on 18-4-2009 by Xeven]

posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 09:27 AM
Truths are just inside us, and through stories we can ignite the feelings inside of us.

Todays world is so full of apathy that we just do not see these things as important no more.

The stories still touch all of us, if we let them, and why not?

posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 09:49 AM
reply to post by andy1033

I agree. Perhaps people have lost the power of imagination and the bible is maybe taken too literally in today's world?

posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 10:00 AM
Most of the bible was taken from earlier stories. It is a collection of stories. And most of Christianity is a collection of older pagan religions, put together to appeal to the masses more easily.

Im not saying that the bible is not worth reading, for it is, but we must be wary of people who claim that it is the word of God, because it is the word of man. Some people claim God spoke through them, while there might be some truth in that, it could easily be "voices" heard in the head coming from the sub-concious part of the brain.

I believe this is why the God of the bible keeps changing his "attitude". And Christ said he was a man. It is men who said he was son of God.

I had day dream the other day. i was thinking about how Jesus was taken into the sky shortly after the resurrection. He had completed his mission on Earth. What if... he started missing Mary, and ask God to live out the rest of his 3 dimension existance with her on Earth. This would answer some questions about Mary being in France and having a child. Could be.

An open mind will allow you to figure out stuff, a closed mind will allow to continue the hatred humans have for each other.

posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 10:03 AM
I trust, at least the NT, because I followed it and the teachings led me into direct experiences of God, Enlightenment, transcendence, etc.

I tend to stay with Mystical Christianity and the Eastern Orthodox Desert Fathers who were themselves describing direct experiences with God.

I have MANY issues with the OT and I also have this feeling the OT God is not the same as the NT God. FOr example "God" gives Moses 10 commandments, one of which is do not kill. Then orders Moses and his armies to attack and kill the armies, women, and children of Caananites, moabites, etc etc. Leave not 1 alive basically is the order. OT God has very human characteristics, gets pissed of, kills(or orders killings) etc.

Whereas Jesus is pure peace, turn the other cheek, Love, grace, mercy, and so on. Thats how I got my enlightenment, from reading mostly the NT and baptism.

Then, when I had this hunch about the OT God, I googled this theory to find all sorts of early christian groups completely dismissing the OT and only living by the NT or only the 1st 4 NT gospels. Its very interesting stuff.

I tend to just let things be with this. If its true about OT God, look at what we would be up against. Millions if not a billion, who "think" otherwise. If we discussed this in the old days we would be blasphemous heretics and we'd be getting tortured/burned/killed right now for it. That mind frame is still around.

So I just rest in my peace, still Love the Lord, still Love God(incomprehensible), and Im in the frame of mind that when its time to leave here(earth) I'll find out for sure.

Also, I personally know a Mason, he was telling me the Masons only go by the OT. They completely dismiss Jesus and the NT. They add to the OT teachings, the Koran, and a few other things. Makes me wonder.

posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 10:14 AM
I dont trust it.
its too vague in regards to being objective; there are many other texts that are related, written in the same time period that were not included for whatever; most probably for political reasons.
Church and politics were a single entity in the middle-ages( one influenced the other).
I tend to think with the old testament, whatever was not approved, wound up buried, or shelved in the back of a ganizer.

posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 10:15 AM
I agree. Early Christianity had many different beliefs and systems but they were all Christians. Gnostic Christians believed very little in traditionally understood sin, and they didn't believe in rules like Christians now are taught. A group of men decided what the New Testament "should" be and that's what people are going off of? Even condemnation of homosexuality is exaggerated because of the past and present church and the people. It's really fabricated to an extent. Many other things have sprung up within Christianity that aren't even in the NT but have been developed by the church. That's when it seems like a cult almost because its separated from the source and people listen to what the "leaders" have to say.

If each Christian read the Bible for themselves, they wouldn't come out of it with hatred of others.

I read really all holy texts and try to draw out what I can. Old Christian texts, new, ect.

[edit on 18-4-2009 by ghaleon12]

posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 10:25 AM
reply to post by ghaleon12

Good point man! If all Christians read their text and understood it that would be fantastic. sadly its the same with a lot of faiths though.
In India, I met a lot of "good Muslims", whom couldn't read let alone read the Koran.
I think its very dangerous for people to become fanatical about doctrines they dont have the power to pursue and learn for themselves. for example you can come across some Christians that have never heard of the Creed of Nicea,or never read the old testament!
Unfortunately like most things; when we become enlightened with little info we have this desire to convert everyone to our thinking. UNless we again experience another Epiphany, we carry on the same; trying to convert whomever will sucks being human sometimes. Thats another reason why we need a knew paradigm!

posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 10:28 AM
reply to post by Xeven

If you have read it, you must see that the God in the Old, is not the Same God portrayed by Christ in the New.

This isn't true. In both Testaments, God is presented as a merciful God who has every right to destroy humanity due to their sin, because he is a holy God. But, God is also presented as a loving God, who provides a way of salvation because he doesn't want any person to perish. God is also viewed, in both Testmaments, as just--punishing evil when need be.

Also, most of you know that the Bible you call the "True Word of God" today is a book put together, changed and edited by many men, Kings, Popes and who knows who else?

The Bible has the most copies of any ancient text availible, both complete works and fragments. The numbers go into the millions. These fragments are also the closest to the events described therein than any other ancient work. In other words, the events described in the New Testament took place in the first century AD. The first texts that we have date from just into the start of the second century AD. Other works, which historians say are valid [such as Histories] and truthful describe events centuries before the actual book was written--and the first text that we have dates from centuries after the author orignally wrote the work!

It's interesting to note that, of the New Testment, there are a little over 1000 differences in the texts. The over whelming majority of these differences are spelling differences--much like how Americans spell it "honor" while the British spell it "honour". The rest of the differences are the omission of or adding of single words--none of which change the meaning of the text in any way. Pertaining to the Old Testament, Isaiah in the Masoretic Text is virutally identical to the Isaiah that is contained in the Dead Sea Scroll, which date back to 400 years or so before Christ. That's quite a feat!

In the end, the Bible wasn't edited to suit man's needs. No King, Pope, or anyone else did. If someone wanted to change it, there were enough people who would've stood against it that it wouldn't have, in the end, happened. [For example, if the Pope wanted to change the Bible to actually say, "The Pope is God's representitive on Earth", there were enough people who didn't accept the authority of the Pope who would've noticed that something fishy was going on.] The fact of the consistency of all the texts that we have proves this.

To answer your question, I trust the Bible as God's word mainly do to the prophecies that are in in that have come true or came true. One example of this is Daniel's 70 weeks. But, in the end, just as you accept that the Bible is not God's word by faith so must one accept that the Bible is God's word by faith. It is God that works through his Holy Spirit that will give us this faith.

reply to post by Le Colonel

And most of Christianity is a collection of older pagan relgiions, put together to appeal to the masses more easily.

Christianity isn't this way. Catholicism is and that is mostly because of Constantine forcing everyone to go to church and become a Christian.

And Christ said he was a man. It is men who said he was son of God

This isn't exactly true. Chirst did say that he was God, but it was in a very specific way that the Jews would recognize. He didn't say that he was God because to people, that wouldn't have meant much, just like to us today, if someone says they're God, we ignore it. When talking to the Pharisees, Jesus said he was the "I AM". Afterward, the Jews wanted to stone him. They wanted to do this because by Jesus calling himself the "I AM" he was calling himself God by the name revealed in the Old Testament--YHWH. In other words, he was blaspheming. He was calling himself God. Jesus also accepted worship from people, which is something only reserved for God.

posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 10:31 AM
reply to post by dominicus

FOr example "God" gives Moses 10 commandments, one of which is do not kill.

The Hebrew word is actually to not murder--either negligently or with intent. The translation of the Hebrew word as kill was a mistake by the translators of the King James Version.

posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 10:34 AM
reply to post by KRISKALI777

there are many other texts that are related, written in the same time period that were not included for whatever; most probably for political reasons.

The reason that certain texts weren't included in the Bible wasn't really due to church politics. They were either written in the second century--after all the Apostles died or they were recognized to be frauds--claming to be written by an Apostle but really not.

posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 10:52 AM
And I thought that maybe we could discuss it with out getting thrown off the scent with zealous dogmatism!
I appreciate that you have different beliefs to my about the bible, but try for a moment to discuss it in a historical/factual sense rather than what you have been frightened into believing.
Anyway If the Christian God is so loving; albeit, Jesus, Yahweh, or Amen (whos name is uttered at the end of most verses) or whoever; isnt the first commandment one of :....I am a JEALOUS god, therefore you may not worship graven images ..Blah,blah.
Point: I dont think Jealously is really becoming of a GOD that is supposedly to have infinite forgiveness/love etc???? Is it????
Please rationalize this one for me!!
And remember the Jews rather than let Barabba live, sacrificed Jesus the Christ for the sins of who....Gentiles. Weren't Gentiles likened to dogs by Jesus?
Anyway Barabba in the aramaic language means "the son of the father". Therefore, just like the name Jesus ( a nickname for Saviour), Barabba- the son of the father; may have been just about anyone.
I find it amazing how individuals will harp-on Jesus this/Mary/that; yet have never even heard of Emperor Constantine, creed of Nicea etc

posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 10:58 AM
It's very good thing that you are looking for the facts on your own. Many people would never question the Bible and believe that if you even question the Bible you will burn in hell. Sorry folks, the hell you talk about, the one you burn in hell for eternity does not exist. A little underground studying of the Bible will tell you that. However, I also made thread about discussing two different Gods. You can read it here:

Are we talking about the same God?

Good luck on your quest on finding the real truth. It's a life long experience but very well worth it.

posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 11:01 AM
Why do I believe in the Bible?

Many reasons - especially due to the Zealous anti-Christian movement of the last 20 years for one.

Christians will be ridiculed because they are Christians.
In Matthew 24:9, Jesus is speaking specifically about the end times and He tells us how the world will treat Christians at that time.....

"Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me."

“For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect—if that were possible.” – Matthew 24:24
Extreme weakening of the faith. Although Christ's teaching will be generally known, people will become indifferent to it. (Lk. 18:8). According to Saint Paul, this will be the time "when people will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires they will choose teachers who will tell them just what they want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and go after fables" (2 Tim. 4:3-4). In other words, close to the end of the world people will become very cynical about Divinely revealed truths and absolute moral values. They will only listen to what sounds interesting or pleasing.

The "Dead Sea Scrolls" and the "Ethiopian Torah" really dismiss the many of the claims that the bible was vastly modified by the "church". Though you are correct that translations can inadvertently change the meaning slightly over time, the bible itself was written by man... and man can make mistakes.

The primary problem we see today as Christians is the "opposing forces" of Satanist / New Age and Evangelical Atheist who are now on a CRUSADE to destroy people's faith in Christianity.

Zeitgeist is a great example of how to create a deceptive story that undermines the entire faith. The Luciferians are actively promoting their "one world religion" but Christianity must be destroyed before they can be successful.

Evangelical Atheist are the 2nd opposing force and many proclaimed Atheist are actually Luciferains whos goal is to eradicate Christianity to make way for the Maitreya (The one world religion messiah) (See Link Below)

Share International & The Lucis Trust / Lucifer Publishing Company (New Age Satanist) are the "sources" of the anti-Christianity part of Zeitgeist.

The Lucis Trust, formerly known as the Lucifer Publishing Company was formed by Alice A. Bailey a Theophsist and disciple of Madame Blavatsky (Helena Petrovna Blavatsky). Blavatsky was the founder of Theosophy and is considered the "mother" of the New Age movement and modern occultism. She taught in her Secret Doctrine that Lucifer was "higher and older than Jehovah. She further expressed in her "great work" that Satan, under different god-names, is really an allegory of "Good, and Sacrifice, a God of Wisdom." Blavatsky believed that Satan was the only god of earth, "is one with the Logos," and is the "cosmic reflection of God.". Blavatsky also equated Lucifer with Jesus Christ.

The Lucis Trust (or Lucifer Publishing Company) is a United Nations Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) and is represented at weekly sessions at the United Nations in New York and Geneva and a member of the UN Economic and Social Council.

Zeitgeist Part I used the controversial author Archarya S as the consultant for the movie. Part I of the movie is based on her book "The Christ Conspiracy", she also penned the companion guide for Zeitgeist.

Archarya S plagiarised her book from a book written in the 1800's by a Quaker who claimed without any evidence that there were 16 previous crucified saviours. This book was heavily cited by the Theosphical Society (founded by Madam Blavatsky - see above).

Archarya S expanded on the themes of the original book by drawing on material from Madam Blavatsky; revered 33rd degree Freemason Alber Pike who stated "Yes, Lucifer is God"; controversial researcher "Jordan Maxwell" (a pseudonym: derived from one of Maxwell's mentors, Madame Blavatsky's, works-- i.e., Jordanus Maximus); Gerlad Massey (High Chief Druid and contributor to Blavatsky's Lucifer Magazine); Albert Churchward (Freemason); James Churchward (Freemason); Michael Baigent (Freemason); Godfrey Higgins (Freemason / Cheif Druid) and others. To this day there are unclaimed financial rewards for anyone who can actually back up any of the claims made by Archarya S or Zeitgeist Part I.

Evangelical Atheist are an interesting lot. Many are not religious at all while some are Satanist / Humanist that have taken the "title" of Atheist to promote their goal (Undermining the Christian faith) which stands in their way.

What is an Evangelical Atheist?

1. An evangelical atheist is one who not only believes there is no god or other supreme being, but is obsessed with convincing everyone around them to become an atheist too, usually through hard-line intolerance (the kind they accuse other religions of). When cornered they usually try to put down their opponent's religion and bash them for 'blind faith', not realizing that their belief that there is no god is no more or less valid or provable than the other guy's belief that there is one.

Not to be confused with normal atheists/agnostics, who for the most part just dont talk about religion and accept the beliefs of those around them as their perogative. Evangelical atheists are particularly common on the Internet, as organized religion is generally accepted as part of 'the system' of global human society, and lately it's become cool on the Internet to hate 'the system'.

2. An Evangelical Atheist is a person that is an atheist and tries to spread atheism amongst theists. It is derived from Evangelism, meaning "Spreading Good News" as practiced by Christianity. Due to the rise of the Conservative Christian movement in the United States of America and the increase of humanistic thought, along with the increased blending other many different religions, Atheism has become more and more popular. Evangelical atheist usually seeks to "convert" borderline theists, often by engaging in debate with fundamentalists.

Nevertheless, some of the brightest minds in the English-speaking world right now argue that religion is the problem. And we know they’re the brightest minds because they keep telling us they are. The New Atheists are positively evangelical. They want to make a convert out of you, although if you’re a “dyed-in-the-wool faith-head” they’ll settle for peppering you with insults and sarcasm instead.

What is most worrying is that the New Atheists seem to gain the most followers precisely among the most ambitious and intelligent young people—the people who will be actively shaping government policy in the years to come. Attracted by the intellectual rebelliousness of the movement, young people fall for its insidious message: "Join us and you can be one of the smart people".

What we call the “New Atheism” is a bit different than its predecessor. It’s more aggressive, and it has more power. The leaders of the sect are well placed in the academic world, and they have a strong determination to mold government policy.

And you wouldn’t like the government if the New Atheists molded its policy. Richard Dawkins has asserted that teaching your religion to your child is a form of child abuse and should be criminalized. Other New Atheists have argued that churches should have to post a sign reading “for entertainment purposes only,” since after all they’re no less a fraud than telephone psychics.

The New Atheists see religion as a disease to be exterminated. Their dream, in short, is not a government neutral to religion, but a government actively hostile to religion.

[edit on 18-4-2009 by info

[edit on 18-4-2009 by infolurker]

posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 11:03 AM
Life is serious business, especially when you are a person who is in a position of Power. I don't know about the purpose of the "holy" books of other cultures, but the western Bible was clearly used as a tool of State. If a King or Priest or who knows who else decided to lie or be deceptive when writing, editing or compiling those books, who is it that is deceived?

Nicolas Romanov watched his wife and children executed before he was murdered...Louis XVI and his wife had their heads chopped off and their youngest son died in prison...Tamerlane, remembered as a Muslim, desecrated the Koran and killed more muslims that anyone else and Ulugh Beg was killed by his Son.

What I trust is that whoever wrote these types of books intended to communicate very serious business to the reader. They did the best they could and Noone else has even come close. I trust that they cherished their own lives and the lives of their loved ones and didn't take it as a toy to be played with. I accept what they said about themselves being flawed men; who are fallen.

I have an extensive education myself and have lived a life rich with experiences, but i can't agree that all of that has completly negated the words of those books.

posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 11:07 AM
I trust the bible because the scriptures hold promises to us, promises from God. However, it would be fair to say that if these promises never came true, the bible would be useless and God doesn't exist, or he is a liar. But in truth, I can claim that I myself have seen these promises come true in my own life, and I would truly be lost in this sad world without God and Jesus Christ as my Savior. The bible has truth in it, and when you read it, you find out what how much God really loves us and watches over us. After seeing this, you really do view life in a different way, and God will make himself real to you if you believe it.

posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 11:15 AM
reply to post by infolurker

Christians will be ridiculed because they are Christians.

tell us why you shouldn't be?
Three religions-Judaism, Islam, Christianity.
All have same characters, fairly similar themes and stories; although different prophets. Most wars started from this crap.
All three are the most intolerant of any other faiths worship values.
thats why you guys get critised. If maybe you explore the concept of Live and Let live, instead of shoving your values and beliefs down peoples throats, and when they are full and dont want to eat, you cry- "In league with Satan".
This is why a lot of people are tired of you faith! Me too!!!

posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 11:25 AM
These three groups of people cannot help it...their father is Intelligent and Warlike. It's not their faults...the war upon the world is all his doing...he just doesn't accept your right to exist.

The world should just capitulate...sure, when you fight, it makes for one hot experience, but at some point you should just lay back and take it. You might like it.

posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 11:33 AM
reply to post by Le Colonel

Its the word of god, because its in all of us, period. We all know truths inside of us, if we let ourselves turn of from the apathy and see and feel for ourselves.

Do you guys think that a man cannot go through his short life, never having sex with females, haha. What ever relationship he had to mary or whoever, can it not have been plutonic? Is that out of the question for you lot?

posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 11:36 AM

Originally posted by Xeven
I would like to know why Christians trust the Holy Bible?

Remember Back to the Future and the Delorian (sp?) Imagine if you were Micheal J Fox and someone asked you to go to five (only 5) different time zones/geographical areas and meet one person in each time zone/area and ask them, "please write a book about God, I'll be back in 5 years to collect it."

Five years later you went and picked up the five books. Logically speaking what are the chances those five books would agree? What are the chances those five books would build upon one another? What are the chances you could make any semblance out of live by or the like? Snowballs in your know where, right?

Different people! Different cultures! Difference Time frames! Different Premises! Different World view! etc...

Logically speaking you would have five unconnected books with five different perspectives, right?

Well, the Bible (torah, prophets, gospels, epistles, revelation) are not 5 books by five authors, but 66 books by 40 authors...who did not know one another, did not live in the same town, did not live in the same time line...authors were of every occupation and financial status........yet......the Bible is a one-themed, continuing story.

Doesn't prove it God's Word yet though...just something that might warrant another look.

Point 2 ---- Here's an undisputable fact (I believe at least after examining) Jesus of Nazareth claimed to be God, his followers claimed He claimed to be God...and...non Christian journalist (such as Josephus) claimed He claimed he was God. Doesn't appear here to be different agendas going on. He said it, His followers said He said it, third parties said He said it and even his enemies said He said it (Sanhedrin, Pharisees, etc)

SO...with all that said...we have only two LOGICAL outcomes. No religious double-talk here) Either you BELIEVE or you REJECT. Really no other options right? If you believe, then to you HE IS LORD. If you REJECT there are really only two options for you.

1) JC knew he wasn't telling the truth, therefore he would be A LIAR

2) JC didn't know he wasn't telling the truth, therefore he would be A LUNATIC.

That's the only three logical outcomes...LIAR, LUNATIC of LORD. There is no room for him being a good guy and all, no room for him being a prophet as every other religion on the face of the earth calls him.

Because prophets don't lie and they are not usually in psych wards.

Point 3 ---- Most direct followers were killed for believing in JC. If they had stole his body and the Romans excused, at least one of them would have squilled just before their execution right? I would have...

but NO-All these ordinary folks were willing to be killed for what they saw…

Good question

OT out!

new topics

<<   2 >>

log in