What is your response to someone asking you to prove The Bible is true?

My go-to thing is always to talk about the dedication of The Apostles and what would be the point of making up Christianity just so they can live a life of godliness and eventually be martyred. But that's really my only talking point.

Attached: 9dd5e92e2d2ecc4fbb1fee789a1ccd6c.png (498x479, 173.92K)

Other urls found in this thread:


I ask them to prove it false.

Give them the gospel. You won't convince them the Bible is tru without showing them scripture.

Romans 10:17
So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Four Kingdoms of Daniel

Really, there's no way to prove that the Bible is true to anyone who doesn't believe in God. You'll need to have some general arguments to support belief in God before you can support the Christian position. I like William Lane Craig's talking points, but whatever works for you is probably fine.

If you can agree that it's at least POSSIBLE the Bible's true, then you're actually in a pretty good position, since you can just play defense against the usual biblical objections. Have the person tell you why they think it isn't true, and respond to that rather than making an affirmative case. Nine times out of ten they'll just bring up the problem of evil or some supposed Bible contradictions which you can usually refute pretty easily.

Show them embed related and have them read the book related as well

I hate that translation because it conflates rhēmatos with logos.

Here, specifically, Paul is speaking about the words Christ said on Earth- the line is:

by the sayings of Christ
or (in the other half of the Greek text)

by the sayings of God

God and Christ are the same, so it doesn't really matter on that part- but what is important is the Christ -is- the logos, but Christ's sayings are the rhematos and I hate the two both being translated as "word" because then you get someone thinking the bible is the "word of God"

TL;DR Faith comes by reading the sayings of Christ, not just reading the bible in general. Also - Christ is the Word of God, it's not a book.

Are you saying that sacred scripture isn't God-breathed and hence the word of God anyway?

I agree that we should try to keep as much nuance in our translations as there was in the Greek, and I accept a distinction between the Word and His word, but it seems to me like you're saying that we should treat the Bible with less respect than it deserves.

Not at all. Scripture is God-breathed, but thus a creation and not the creator. The Word of God is Christ himself, as in, in the Beginning there was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God.

The bible is divinely-inspired scripture but it is not equal to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. When we seek to be guided by the Word of God, we look for Jesus to move us spiritually, not words on a page- though they are excellent for teaching, reproof, and other such uses.

The bible is the rhematos of God, the sayings of God. Of course it is important what Christ said.

But the logos, the Word of God Himself, He is greater than his words, His reality cannot be conveyed by mere words and I see people exchanging the need for a real relationship with Him for a slavish devotion to words on a page- which can often be interpreted for good or for evil depending on the spirit inhabiting the one doing the interpreting.

The bible can be used for evil (when picked apart, if read honestly and in it's totality, it's hard to do that- but the point is it can be done), Jesus Christ, the Word of God, cannot be used for anything bad. That is an important distinction we should all be aware of.

That's what I was trying to point out, the nuance of something useful (bible) with something perfect (Christ) and that we should use different words for the two.

That's understandable. I only wondered because in your last post you said

which sounded a little off to me.

Saging for off-topic.

My problem with calling the bible the "word of God" is that people will never be able to understand the significance of the Gospel of John , chapter 1, unless we change that translation.

Ask them to read it.

Faith comes by HEARING. And hearing by preaching and preaching by being sent. That's Paul argument. Not "Read thy Bible". Though rest of your post is right.

Wrong. Hearing comes specifically by the word of God. Just any preaching is not enough. Paul even explains this with verse 16 before the last conclusion.

But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Ok, can you explain a couple of things then? Why is it that John 12:48 says—

>He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

Where the "word" that he has spoken is logos?

Or about 1 Thessalonians 2:13—

Both "word" of God here is logos. So apparently from this, logos actually can be heard. You say Christ's sayings are the rhematos and this is absolutely, explicitly separate from logos. But it seems you've oversimplified the relationship between these two words. Really, rhematos is simple a spoken word, and thus a "saying," and for this reason these two words are not mutually exclusive at all, because words can be spoken; rather one is just a certain form of a word, a word expressed a certain way, and logos is the most abstract concept of a word, and we see them used interchangeably also in 1 Peter 1:23-25. This puts to rest any idea that logos does not mean word or that the Word of God is not something that can be communicated.

One of many leftycucks bait threads here but I will respond anyways. By showing them The Not So Chosen People Bible Series on jewsforhitler.com/

"And how shall they hear, without a preacher?
And how shall they preach unless they be sent. as it is written: How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, of them that bring glad tidings of good things!"
Hearing comes by word of God. And hearing comes by being sent. It's not contridatory. For apostles were sent by word of Christ: "As my Father hath sent me, I also send you."
You are right when you said that "any" preaching is not enough. There is no real, faith-giving preaching without "being sent". Here is an evident proof against all new teachers, who have all usurped to themselves the ministry, without any lawful mission, derived by succession from the apostles, to whom Christ said: "As my Father hath sent me, I also send you."
The Almighty sends people to preach two different ways. The one is extraordinary by internal inspiration, as was that of the Baptist, and all the other prophets; in which case, however, extraordinary proofs must be given that they are sent by God; and the other is ordinary, which is derived from Christ, and from the apostles and their successors, whom he has appointed to be his vicegerents on earth.
Paul here explains, but not quite what you imagine. He explains that there cannot be saving, living faith spoken about in this chapter without obedience to the Gospel and by it to those, who lawfuly preach it.

It seems you also agree then.
The church only operates one way, ordination. That's what this is about.


If anyone would to ask this I would just quote Augustine: I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.

My point was that reading the word of God will not automatically make one believe. There have to be Church and her lawful preachers. You cannot bypass the Body to get to the Head.
Yes, but ordination itself comes twofold. Moses was called extraordinary but Josue was ordained by succession. By direct calling judges and prophets and first apostles were called. But they all prooved it by extraordniary signs. Paul himself was not "made apostle by men" but by God himself. Though he was made Bishop by them.

Anyone in the information age who doesn't find objective historical and philosofical proof of the resurrection isn't that interested in truth to begin with.
What is most enfuriating is smug liberals thinking some bullshit logic they come up with wasn't already adressed prior to the third century at most.

Good concerns.

The logos of God is Christ.

Of course, there are other Logon. Logos refers to a principal, an argument, whereas rhematos refers to a saying

John 12:48 better translated as

In fact, since we know Christ will judge in the last day, and Christ is the logos made flesh, this is all completely congruous with what I said.

Or, 1 Thessalonians 2:13

These verses don't counter my both. There is a secular meaning of logos, but logos is still different than rhematos.

The logos can be communicated, but the logos is not itself the thing being communicated- that's where you make the mistake.

You can communicate about the Logos of God through rhematos of Christ, or your own words.

I hope that clears it up.

As an expansion on what OP is asking. What are some good rebuttal points for common atheist talking points? I'm not as well versed in scripture as a lot of you guys. Like, if some atheist asks:

The sun rises on the good and the evil alike

God is about eternity, not the temporal.

One thing I find to debunk is the idea that the Bible is true because it itself says it is true. You guys get my point? A common argument I see is that us Christians use the Bible to prove the Bible, and by extension, Christianity true. Isn't there some other external source I can use or something like that?

This is something I also find that's very common. It's also seen in the field of psychoanalysis, you defend your framework within your own framework, not with outside sources.
How can you defend your own religion outside of your own theology, though? I suppose you'd have to peek through philosophical theories but never undergo sophistry for the sake of winning arguments.

Exactly user. I mean, can't we use miracles as proof? But then, how do you explain Islamic miracles or miracles of other religions?

They'll take a sociological or psychological perspective on miracles, they're hard to prove empirically.

No, you can't use miracles because it actually says in the Bible, Jesus himself said that miracles don't prove anything since even demons can create miracles.

Personally, if I was going to argue for the legitimacy for the Bible, I'd look at historical events that actually reinforce what's described in the Bible. For example, the Bible talks about a great flood, does it not? Joe Rogan has two videos where he talks with Randall Carson about the six-mile thick North American ice sheets being hit by a meteor, rapidly melting the ice and thus, rapidly raising the water levels across the world and destroying practically all civilised coastal life. They're pretty good talks.

Yeah but most of the world's religions talk of a great flood that wipes all of humanity. I don't think the Great Flood can be used as an argument because that would just pin the "Christianity is a religion borrowed from several different religions" argument on us.