What makes the Bible so believable for people?

gnostic · Oct 12, 2018

BilliardsBall said:
Over 90% of NT doctrines, I find, are from the OT. 1 Enoch is either quoted once (Jude) or we have the dates wrong for authorship and 1 Enoch is quoting Jude!

No. 1 Enoch predated Jesus, so it predated the epistle of Jude.

The whole 1 Enoch wasn’t written at the the same time, but even the youngest part of 1 Enoch - the section known as the Book of Parables - have been dated to 1st century BCE.

The oldest part - the Book of Watchers - which concerned the war and rebellion in heaven, between groups of angels (archangels and fallen angels) and the Nephilim, have been dated to early 3rd century BCE.

The rebellion in 1 Enoch was clearly inspiration to the fallen angels of the NT, including that of the Christian Revelation (early 2nd century CE).

Parts of the Book of Watchers found its way into Qumran Dead Sea Scrolls (written in Aramaic), with the oldest fragments dated to between 200 and 150 BCE.

While Jude is most likely dated to either very late 1st century CE or mid-2nd century CE.

We know that the Book of Enoch was known before 100 BCE, because a more abbreviated version on the Book of Watchers, were retold in the Book of Jubilees, and we know that Jubilees was known to the Hasmoneans of the 2nd century BCE.

sojourner · Oct 12, 2018

BilliardsBall said:
My friend,

I'm a Jew who rejected all Gentile religion before converting. My conversion came via Bible reading, mostly. The Bible happens to coincide with some Protestant maxims, however, many hundreds or thousands of sects (however you count such things), each and ALL of them going from the scriptures, never found transubstantiation, Marian adoration, etc. in the scriptures.

For example, "trust God for salvation, not works" is something I find in both testaments. You can say ALL early church fathers believed X, and even if true, which it isn't, since I can find substitutionary atonement, etc. very early, I will not say the early church trumps the Tanakh, which is MUCH older than the historic "church". Again, a Jewish perspective, and the NT DOES interpret the OT, but I find "the Protestant faith" in Tanakh. Also, over 90% of the NT seems to be direct Halachic commentary on the OT.

I do agree re: tenets of the faith, but I think we interpret them differently.

It also coincides with earlier Roman and Eastern doctrine. Yes, Transubstsntiation can be (and is) extrapolation from the texts. So is Marian adoration. Just because you don’t buy it doesn’t mean it’s not there. Remember: the texts are multivalent.

Yes substitutionary atonement is there; so are (IMO) better constructions.

sojourner · Oct 12, 2018

BilliardsBall said:
Huh? The Last Supper is a seder, Jesus does the traditional head of household teaching, wine and matzo are shared, a sop from the lamb, the service is held in a home, etc. I grew up observing Passover seders in homes.

The NT IS heavily influenced by Greek culture, mainly in reproving Greek culture--reproving gnosticism, ascetism, sinful lifestyles...

Is it? Funny; it reads a whole lot more like a Roman Symposium. Books are written on this subject and biblical anthropologists have stated as much.

sojourner · Oct 12, 2018

BilliardsBall said:
My point is the epistle to Rome is the place where the Gentile church is admonished against anti-semitism ("God really wants to restore the natural branches") and Rome was for some time anti-semitic in saying the Jews killed the Christ (rather than the predetermined plan for Christ to die under a sentence imposed by Rome!).

The Roman church is not an evil empire to me, but all things proceed biblically from a correct understanding of the saving gospel. I'm not a Calvinist and not an Arminian and wish you'd stop saying I'm a Protestant, I'm and evangelical and am not Protesting anything.

Rome says, "Trust Christ to begin your faith journey towards possible salvation" but I say, "Trust Christ to receive eternal life as a free gift IMHO". Not an evil empire but a distinction that puts millions of people at risk for something between misinformation and loss of salvation.

That’s certainly one way to read it, but, again, not the only — or especially best — way. Your statements certainly read Calvinistic. And they read Protestant. I don’t really care what you call yourself, but that’s certainly how you come across.

BilliardsBall · Oct 15, 2018

gnostic said:
No. 1 Enoch predated Jesus, so it predated the epistle of Jude.

The whole 1 Enoch wasn’t written at the the same time, but even the youngest part of 1 Enoch - the section known as the Book of Parables - have been dated to 1st century BCE.

The oldest part - the Book of Watchers - which concerned the war and rebellion in heaven, between groups of angels (archangels and fallen angels) and the Nephilim, have been dated to early 3rd century BCE.

The rebellion in 1 Enoch was clearly inspiration to the fallen angels of the NT, including that of the Christian Revelation (early 2nd century CE).

Parts of the Book of Watchers found its way into Qumran Dead Sea Scrolls (written in Aramaic), with the oldest fragments dated to between 200 and 150 BCE.

While Jude is most likely dated to either very late 1st century CE or mid-2nd century CE.

We know that the Book of Enoch was known before 100 BCE, because a more abbreviated version on the Book of Watchers, were retold in the Book of Jubilees, and we know that Jubilees was known to the Hasmoneans of the 2nd century BCE.

No, the "fallen angels" are in the OT, and the NT uses as its main source, the OT, taking multiple hundreds of passages for inspiration. 1 Enoch is possibly quoted one time.

BilliardsBall · Oct 15, 2018

sojourner said:
It also coincides with earlier Roman and Eastern doctrine. Yes, Transubstsntiation can be (and is) extrapolation from the texts. So is Marian adoration. Just because you don’t buy it doesn’t mean it’s not there. Remember: the texts are multivalent.

Yes substitutionary atonement is there; so are (IMO) better constructions.

I understand. We are debating the implications that lead to these alternative theories:

1) Every one of the numerous sects apart from Rome who studied the Bible missed "what's in the text" and are wrong, or uninspired, or heretical, or demonic

2) Rome is wrong and those many sects (all of whom emphasize scripture above tradition, unlike Rome, which does the opposite) are right

BilliardsBall · Oct 15, 2018

sojourner said:
That’s certainly one way to read it, but, again, not the only — or especially best — way. Your statements certainly read Calvinistic. And they read Protestant. I don’t really care what you call yourself, but that’s certainly how you come across.

I guess I can wear that label, if you understand, that like the many sects, I read the Bible to see what Jesus and the apostles said, rather than ask Rome as my intermediary to tell me what they "really said".

sojourner · Oct 15, 2018

BilliardsBall said:
I understand. We are debating the implications that lead to these alternative theories:

1) Every one of the numerous sects apart from Rome who studied the Bible missed "what's in the text" and are wrong, or uninspired, or heretical, or demonic

2) Rome is wrong and those many sects (all of whom emphasize scripture above tradition, unlike Rome, which does the opposite) are right

Well, FWIW, I don’t think Rome is wrong. I think (as they do — and as the church historically has) that scripture is part of the Tradition, and the two go hand-in-hand.

And, FWIW, I don’t think the other sects “missed” what’s in the text. But I think the ones who insist “sola scriptura” are mistaken.

sojourner · Oct 15, 2018

BilliardsBall said:
I guess I can wear that label, if you understand, that like the many sects, I read the Bible to see what Jesus and the apostles said, rather than ask Rome as my intermediary to tell me what they "really said".

No one’s asking you to “ask Rome.” I certainly don’t ask Rome. I think the “intermediary” should be the scholars who’ve done the work of exegesis.

Tomas Kindahl · Oct 15, 2018

Nowhere Man said:
Honestly I can't think of a single thing.

Nobody knows who wrote it, with any degree of certainty. No names of the original authors, nobody knows who was on the Council of Trent , Council of Nicea Etc.

It's obviously been redacted , has incomplete information and has gaps in its narratives. Side-by-side variations are noted in each version of the Bible that exist today to substantiate that is indeed the case.

The Bible clearly is not a divinely inspired collection of books either , evidenced by Christianity's vast and varied amount of denominations and sects, who, to this day remain visibly at odds with ongoing issues over interpretation and meaning, making it clear there's no evidence of any type of guiding hand at play to indicate it now or was ever divinely inspired to begin with at its inception.

There's no real support or proofs to the notion of divine harmonization between one author with another throughout the Testaments over significant periods of time to substantiate any type of harmony exists because each subsequent book could be "harmonized" with each proceeding book by simply reading what each proceeding book said and conveniently changing the subsequent book to "fit" each narrative to uphold the claim that the subsequent authors did not know what the preceding authors wrote making such alleged harmony between books a divine proof a Biblical accuracy and credibility.

Oral tradition is actually worthless. If it wasn't, it could have been used and demonstrated today as a living testament of reliability and accuracy but it isn't for a reason. Obvious reasons.

Oral tradition is bunk. All the things you say are correct, but they're irrelevant to the adherents.

Nowhere Man said:
Hence the requirement for writing something down , and we've seen how effective that can be.

Why would anybody be willing to think the Bible is for one reason or another a proper foundation to base an entire religion on and in cases, people's own lives to point of believability that it would trump logic and science?

Logic and science are good things. But most adherents of the Bible don't regard science and logic as being in opposition to the Bible, so they opt for the Bible regarding moral matters and science and logic regarding practical problem solving. "Understanding" the Bible is seldom a literal interpretation – some Christians interpret it literally, but not very many – understanding the Bible is kind of decoding the moral message, often by symbols. One example: Jesus calming the storm is often translated to the faith (Jesus) making order of the inner chaos (the storm). It is an instruction to use prayers as a method to calm the mind before an expected hardship. Interpreting it literally then only becomes ridiculous – it totally misses the point.

gnostic · Oct 15, 2018

BilliardsBall said:
No, the "fallen angels" are in the OT, and the NT uses as its main source, the OT, taking multiple hundreds of passages for inspiration. 1 Enoch is possibly quoted one time.

There are no fallen angels in the OT, and there are no rebellion in heaven in OT.

That myth originated with the Hellenistic inter-Testament 1 Enoch.

BilliardsBall · Oct 16, 2018

sojourner said:
No one’s asking you to “ask Rome.” I certainly don’t ask Rome. I think the “intermediary” should be the scholars who’ve done the work of exegesis.

But we can skip the scholars if we have tradition to marry to scripture? (More than scholars have inspired tradition, right?)

I don't think sola scriptura in terms of others can receive accurate information from God. I do believe 1) the Bible is infallible 2) the shortcut to knowing what any prophet, apostle or Jesus actually said is Bible study.

Thanks.

BilliardsBall · Oct 16, 2018

gnostic said:
There are no fallen angels in the OT, and there are no rebellion in heaven in OT.

That myth originated with the Hellenistic inter-Testament 1 Enoch.

Um: What Does the Bible Say About Fallen Angels?

Muffled · Oct 16, 2018

The Bible provided spiritual information. It has proven to be true.

Muffled · Oct 16, 2018

Valjean said:
Argumentum ad populum?
Social benefits of conformity and fear of consequences of dissent?
Religion as a social club?

People believe what's convenient.

I believe none of the above apply to me.

Muffled · Oct 16, 2018

Ellen Brown said:
Living as Homo Sapiens is chaotic and terrifying, driving people to hysteria. Worse yet, Homo Sapiens love to hate others and killing each other is even better. Transitional Homo Sapiens about to step to the next level begin to realize that we are uncivilized and will wipe humanity out left to our own devices. I think that the Creator is driving the evolution into higher beings. Yes, rather than view ourselves too loftily, we are but a huge breeding population where he is building a civilized, gentle population that will live peacefully in his presence. In most ways the Bible, and other documents chronicle our path to that end. Too many stupidly think of the Bible as permission to abuse others and to put themselves over them.

Yes, time for a nap.

I believe that is humanism and not Biblically based. It does fit in with ancient alien theories though.

Valjean · Oct 16, 2018

Muffled said:
I believe none of the above apply to me.

You indicate you're Christian. Was this arrived at by study and critical analysis, or was it something you were raised with?
If you'd been born and raised in Riyadh, would you still be Christian?

Twilight Hue · Oct 16, 2018

Muffled said:
The Bible provided spiritual information. It has proven to be true.

I think people have different levels/standards of believability by which something is accepted or rejected.

Understandably, it's hard to scrutinize and critique when you already feel something works sufficiently enough on a personal level.

gnostic · Oct 16, 2018

BilliardsBall said:
Um: What Does the Bible Say About Fallen Angels?

Most of the fallen angels are found in the NT, not the OT.

The quotes from OT are mostly just incompetent interpretations by Christian apologists.

Take Isaiah 1:23 for instance, if you think this verse is correct, and that “princes of rebels and companions of thieves” referred to fallen angels, then you and the person who wrote this webpage and quoted this passage would be wrong, because you both have taken the verse out of context.

If you both to read the whole chapter, Isaiah 1, then you would know that this passage related to the people of the kingdom of Judah, and of Zion, as in Jerusalem. 1:23 has nothing to do with fallen angels or demons.

Isaiah 14:12-14 is also taken out of context, ever since bloody Jerome translated the passages, and translated the “Day Star son Of Dawn” and wrongly used “Lucifer”. This whole passages is only a small part of the whole, in which the “Day Star” is really the “King of Babylonia” (see Isaiah 1:3-4) and his kingdom, not Satan/Devil or any fallen angel.

Try reading the most of the chapter (from 1 to 27) which concerned the king of Babylon, instead of selective verses.

Some of the OT quotes have to do with angels, but nothing to do with fallen angels.

And if you understand Judaism in regarding to angel lore, there are no “fallen angels”, because angels have no free will, so they couldn’t possibly rebel against God.

As I stated in earlier replies, the rebellion of fallen angels come from the Hellenistic Book of Enoch.

1AOA1 · Oct 17, 2018

Nowhere Man said:
Honestly I can't think of a single thing.

Nobody knows who wrote it, with any degree of certainty. No names of the original authors, nobody knows who was on the Council of Trent , Council of Nicea Etc.

It's obviously been redacted , has incomplete information and has gaps in its narratives. Side-by-side variations are noted in each version of the Bible that exist today to substantiate that is indeed the case.

The Bible clearly is not a divinely inspired collection of books either , evidenced by Christianity's vast and varied amount of denominations and sects, who, to this day remain visibly at odds with ongoing issues over interpretation and meaning, making it clear there's no evidence of any type of guiding hand at play to indicate it now or was ever divinely inspired to begin with at its inception.

There's no real support or proofs to the notion of divine harmonization between one author with another throughout the Testaments over significant periods of time to substantiate any type of harmony exists because each subsequent book could be "harmonized" with each proceeding book by simply reading what each proceeding book said and conveniently changing the subsequent book to "fit" each narrative to uphold the claim that the subsequent authors did not know what the preceding authors wrote making such alleged harmony between books a divine proof a Biblical accuracy and credibility.

Oral tradition is actually worthless. If it wasn't, it could have been used and demonstrated today as a living testament of reliability and accuracy but it isn't for a reason. Obvious reasons.

Hence the requirement for writing something down , and we've seen how effective that can be.

Why would anybody be willing to think the Bible is for one reason or another a proper foundation to base an entire religion on and in cases, people's own lives to point of believability that it would trump logic and science?

People and belief are biblical.

What makes the Bible so believable for people?

The Lost One

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

... out on my Odyssé — again!

The Lost One

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Jesus in me

Jesus in me

Jesus in me

Veteran Member

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.

The Lost One

Active Member