Where Did This Belief Come From?

[Left Coast]

Does the Bible ever say that our beliefs must be written in the Bible? Must we be able to cite chapter and verse that explicitly says what we believe in order to justify that belief?

If you think so, please cite chapter and verse stating this.

 

[Sirona]

If I had to give a try I would pick this one, as it says that "examining the Scriptures" is praiseworthy.

Acts 17:11 Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message (the "good news") with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

If it's the Jehovah's Witnesses you talk about, they usually proselytize in pairs, so if one has lost his chain of argumentation, the other can take over talking you down. When I was a kid, I was really knowledgeable in the Bible. There was a neighbour who would regularly proselytize to my grandma, but since she was alone, it was me who succeeded in the battle of talking her down. She replied "there is Satan speaking". Thinking about it, I think it's an odd notion to believe you have "convinced somebody" just because they run out of counter-arguments or because they are just tired of listening to you.

 

[Left Coast]

If I had to give a try I would pick this one, as it says that "examining the Scriptures" is praiseworthy.

Acts 17:11 Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message (the "good news") with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

In the beginning of the chapter, we see that the context there was that Paul was coming into the synagogues to proselytize and attempting to make arguments from Jewish Scripture regarding Jesus:

"After Paul and Silas had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three sabbath days argued with them from the scriptures,"

So with that in mind, yes, it makes sense that the Jews there would be called "praiseworthy" for fact-checking what Paul said about the Tanakh when he made claims about it.

But that's a far cry from this belief some Christians have that any and every doctrine or belief a person asserts must be able to be cited verbatim from Scripture.

If it's the Jehovah's Witnesses you talk about.

JWs are just one Christian group where this kind of thinking is common. Lots of Protestants think this way.

 

[pearl]

15but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts. Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope,
16but do it with gentleness and reverence, keeping your conscience clear, so that, when you are maligned, those who defame your good conduct in Christ may themselves be put to shame. IPeter 15-16
16* All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 2Tim3:16
Catholic interpretation. could possibly also be translated, “All scripture inspired by God is useful for….” In this classic reference to inspiration, God is its principal author, with the writer as the human collaborator. Thus the scriptures are the word of God in human language

 

[Left Coast]

15but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts. Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope,
16but do it with gentleness and reverence, keeping your conscience clear, so that, when you are maligned, those who defame your good conduct in Christ may themselves be put to shame. IPeter 15-16

Not seeing where this says anything about the Bible.

16* All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 2Tim3:16
Catholic interpretation. could possibly also be translated, “All scripture inspired by God is useful for….” In this classic reference to inspiration, God is its principal author, with the writer as the human collaborator. Thus the scriptures are the word of God in human language

Two things you may already know:

1) "Scripture" at that time was the Tanakh. There was no New Testament. 2) That something is useful does not make it mandatory.

 

[Brickjectivity]

In the beginning of the chapter, we see that the context there was that Paul was coming into the synagogues to proselytize and attempting to make arguments from Jewish Scripture regarding Jesus:

"After Paul and Silas had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three sabbath days argued with them from the scriptures,"

So with that in mind, yes, it makes sense that the Jews there would be called "praiseworthy" for fact-checking what Paul said about the Tanakh when he made claims about it.

But that's a far cry from this belief some Christians have that any and every doctrine or belief a person asserts must be able to be cited verbatim from Scripture.

Jews on the Sabbath: Their goal in arguing on the Sabbath is to honor the scripture, to make sure they know the law, to deepen the understanding of it, maybe for fun etc. Its unknown to me what is the format for arguing in a synagogue, and winning may not be the goal. What does Paul mean that he argues on three Sabbaths, and why are three Sabbaths enough? I don't know. Does anyone?

Lots of Protestants think this way.

Protestants have significantly softened since the reformation though. There are jokes about judging who is or isn't going to heaven. Protestants for the most part are born into different groups and are aware of the irony that this church next door thinks this or that.

 

[Sirona]

So with that in mind, yes, it makes sense that the Jews there would be called "praiseworthy" for fact-checking what Paul said about the Tanakh when he made claims about it.

Maybe I got you wrong but I think you may be implying that the Jews in Berea rejected or should have rejected Paul's message when checking it against the Tanakh. However, verse 12 says this.

Acts 17
10Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. 12Therefore many of them believed (in Jesus), and also not a few of the Greeks, prominent women as well as men.

 

[Left Coast]

Protestants have significantly softened since the reformation though. There are jokes about judging who is or isn't going to heaven. Protestants for the most part are born into different groups and are aware of the irony that this church next door thinks this or that.

Depends on the Protestant. Many have liberalized, others have doubled down on fundamentalism.

 

[Sirona]

1) "Scripture" at that time was the Tanakh. There was no New Testament. 2) That something is useful does not make it mandatory.

There are people who like certain media (nowadays often films) and can quote every single line of it. So, what if the medium concerned is not just a movie but an authoritative text? And what if reciting this text by heart gives you high regard from your fellow believers? Wouldn't you strive for it even if it's not "mandatory"?

 

[Left Coast]

Maybe I got you wrong but I think you may be implying that the Jews in Berea rejected or should have Paul's message when checking it against the Tanakh. However, verse 12 says this.

Acts 17
10Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. 12Therefore many of them believed (in Jesus), and also not a few of the Greeks, prominent women as well as men.

No, I'm aware they didn't reject Paul in the story.

My point was that in context, it makes sense that they checked what the Scriptures said because Paul came in making claims about the Scriptures. That doesn't mean a person needs to have a Scripture reference ready to justify any or all beliefs they have.

 

[Left Coast]

There a people who like certain media (nowadays often films) and can quote every single line of it. So, what if the medium concerned is not just a movie but an authoritative text? And what if reciting this text by heart gives you high regard from your fellow believers? Wouldn't you strive for it even if it's not "mandatory"?

I can certainly see why you'd strive to understand a text thoroughly if you considered it authoritative. My point is that the degree of authority granted the Bible by some Christians isn't even contained in the Bible itself.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The Bible is clearly redacted and written by unknown authors. There's no way of knowing it's accuracy nor its validation.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Does the Bible ever say that our beliefs must be written in the Bible? Must we be able to cite chapter and verse that explicitly says what we believe in order to justify that belief?

If you think so, please cite chapter and verse stating this.

Well chapters and verses were only inserted a few centuries ago so then obviously one doesn't have to do that. The problem with proof texting chapter and verses is that it causes people to ignore the context of the chapter so it is pretty detrimental to bible exegesis.

 

[Nimos]

Does the Bible ever say that our beliefs must be written in the Bible? Must we be able to cite chapter and verse that explicitly says what we believe in order to justify that belief?

If you think so, please cite chapter and verse stating this.

No, I think that would be a misunderstanding, at least to some degree.

Also beliefs are a lot of things, I might believe that taking a cold shower each morning will make me live longer. Im pretty sure that you won't find support for such belief in the bible.

The way I would probably put it, is that one has to believe in the bible as being true and with a higher meaning, not necessarily that it has to be literally true, because some stories are more poetic, some seem more historical etc. but that the messages in it are divine or divinely inspired. I find it difficult to see how the authors of it, would have made people believe it, if that was not their intention. It would fall pretty flat, had they just said that it was some random stories that they made up, because they thought they were cool.

Also at least in my opinion, there is no doubt that the OT was used as law in ancient Israel, I think, there are so many in it, about everything that it would seem unlikely that it weren't. And telling people that it was God that gave them these, would require people to actually believe in it or again I doubt, people would have bought it.
So in that sense, you can say that at least some beliefs would have had to be justified through the bible and those in charge of handling disputes, would probably have read from it in order to show how and in which way people did wrong, what their punishment should be etc.

Personally I think the ancient jews back in those days, would have looked at it much in the same way as we do about the stuff we believe in today and follow. For them this was probably very good and made a lot of sense.

 

[Starlight]

Does the Bible ever say that our beliefs must be written in the Bible? Must we be able to cite chapter and verse that explicitly says what we believe in order to justify that belief?

If you think so, please cite chapter and verse stating this.

Why do you care about what the Bible say when you only believe in the Dharmic religions?

 

[pearl]

1) "Scripture" at that time was the Tanakh. There was no New Testament. 2) That something is useful does not make it mandatory.

True, and the reference to 'Scripture' would have been to the Septuagint. It being useful does not relate to any concept of Sola Scriptura since the Bible was not mass produced 'till 1500's. Catholic bibles were already mass produced, the Gutenberg Bible and the other versions of the Bible being produced before Protestantism were all Catholic Bibles.
No useful is not mandatory, that's the point.

 

[Sirona]

I can certainly see why you'd strive to understand a text thoroughly if you considered it authoritative. My point is that the degree of authority granted the Bible by some Christians isn't even contained in the Bible itself.

Maybe you're making things way more complicated than they are. If somebody comes around telling you that there's this guy named Jesus who can solve all your life's problems even though he's no longer on earth, I think most people would want to know about the preacher / book that speaks about him. In the end, it boils down to why people believe. The Bible is first of all only paper and ink; it is people who receive and interpret it. Only then it "comes alive".

 

[Left Coast]

Maybe you're making things way more complicated than they are. If somebody comes around telling you that there's this guy named Jesus who can solve all your life's problems even though he's no longer on earth, I think most people would want to know about the preacher / book that speaks about him. In the end, it boils down to why people believe. The Bible is first of all only paper and ink; it is people who receive and interpret it. Only then it "comes alive".

I think you're misunderstanding where this conversation stems from. Yes, clearly, if someone says there's a guy named Jesus and the Bible tells us things about him and you should know about them, it makes perfect sense to take a look at what the Bible says and determine if it's believable, etc.

The issue is that there are certain strands of Christianity wherein any claim that some doctrine or belief or practice is good or true is met with the question, "Where is that in the Bible??" They have a very reductionist kind of view where any and all beliefs or practices one undertakes must be able to be found in the explicit text of the Bible. It's that mentality I'm challenging.

 

[Brian2]

Does the Bible ever say that our beliefs must be written in the Bible? Must we be able to cite chapter and verse that explicitly says what we believe in order to justify that belief?

If you think so, please cite chapter and verse stating this.

It is probably good not to contradict the Bible.
There is a passage that says do not go beyond what is written (1Cor 4:6) that could be saying that our beliefs should be in the scriptures.

 

[Left Coast]

It is probably good not to contradict the Bible.
There is a passage that says do not go beyond what is written (1Cor 4:6) that could be saying that our beliefs should be in the scriptures.

"I have applied all this to Apollos and myself for your benefit, brothers and sisters, so that you may learn through us the meaning of the saying, “Nothing beyond what is written,” so that none of you will be puffed up in favor of one against another."

It's not clear in context what "what is written" refers to here, or in what context Paul is endorsing "nothing beyond" it...and again, the New Testament did not exist when this was written.