If the Bible has errors or discrepancies how am I supposed to believe in Jesus?

[-V-]

But the Gospels were written decades later, didn't have names attached to them, and don't read like eyewitness accounts as Revelation or Paul's letters do.

They very much DO read like eyewitness accounts.

And there is little reason to think they were penned by anyone other than who they are traditionally ascribed to.
Matthew: 1. Matthew: Introduction, Argument, and Outline
Mark: 2. Mark: Introduction, Argument, and Outline
Luke: 3. Luke: Introduction, Outline, and Argument
... and I already gave the article for John.
The first section of each article deals with authorship.

 

[CrystalDragon]

They very much DO read like eyewitness accounts.

And there is little reason to think they were penned by anyone other than who they are traditionally ascribed to.
Matthew: 1. Matthew: Introduction, Argument, and Outline
Mark: 2. Mark: Introduction, Argument, and Outline
Luke: 3. Luke: Introduction, Outline, and Argument
... and I already gave the article for John.
The first section of each article deals with authorship.

But why do they read like the disciples are a separate group? No "I heard Jesus say", "Jesus said to us", etc. And no references to themselves in 1st person.

 

[Albion]

You wrote plenty of words but said nothing at all. Nevermind. .

OK. If you didn't get it from that post, a re-do probably won't work either.

 

[-V-]

But why do they read like the disciples are a separate group? No "I heard Jesus say", "Jesus said to us", etc. And no references to themselves in 1st person.

It was common for writers in their culture to refer to themselves in the third person.

What you're doing is one of the more common mistakes of Bible critics - thinking ancient cultures thought & wrote the same way modern cultures do.

 

[CrystalDragon]

It was common for writers in their culture to refer to themselves in the third person.

What you're doing is one of the more common mistakes of Bible critics - thinking ancient cultures thought & wrote the same way modern cultures do.

But in Revelation and Paul's letters they wrote as we'd expect: in first person.

 

[hedrick]

Just citing the examples of the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of John, when the supper and day and hour of cruxificion is different, or, John in the gospel saying he was an eyewitness of the events, when scholars don't believe it was he who wrote ithe gospel, how am I supposed to believe in Jesus? I'm wavering on my belief.

In no other area of life do we expect perfect witnesses. Indeed in many cases having witnesses that agree too closely is suspicious, since we know that honest witnesses aren't perfect. Note that I'm not implying that the writers of the Gospels were witnesses -- they're probably the next generation -- but the same principle applies. John is actually special. He's very different from Matthew, Mark, and Luke. If you look at his accounts, you'll see that each episode typically starts with a brief account that wouldn't be out of place in M, M, or L, and then continues into a longer theological reflection. The theological reflections are probably his, but the events they are based on are plausible.

Humans are used to evaluating imperfect evidence, since that's all we've got. We make life and death decisions in other areas even when there's uncertainty. We're got a stream of writing starting from about 30 years after the events (Paul), and most scholars think some of Paul's letters cite much earlier tradition. We have letters from Christians at or near the same time as the NT, continuing from then onwards. It require conspiracy theory not to think that Jesus was real and we know pretty much what he taught.

If you don't believe in inerrancy, the miraculous becomes a bit iffy. The reason is that we know that writers in that time period tended to believe in miracles that we think didn't happen. If we threw away everything that had this problem we wouldn't have any ancient history at all, since it was true of all writers. However the central miracle of the resurrection is sort of hard to avoid. It's pretty much impossible to explain the existence of the Church as it grew up without the resurrection. However you assess the others requires care; it probably doesn't make sense to talk about that here, as this is already pretty long.

 

[disciple1]

Just citing the examples of the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of John, when the supper and day and hour of cruxificion is different, or, John in the gospel saying he was an eyewitness of the events, when scholars don't believe it was he who wrote ithe gospel, how am I supposed to believe in Jesus? I'm wavering on my belief.

The only purpose of this life is to study the bible, at least that's the way I feel, and then whatever time is left you can do what you want, if you do what you want first, and don't study the bible you'll never know anything except what the pastor tells you, and a lot of time it's not the truth.
Look at these verses.
Matthew chapter 4 verse 4
Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'"
Romans chapter 1 verse 28
Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.

John chapter 8 verse 31,32
To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, " If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.
2 John
9 Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.
Job chapter 23 verse 12
I have not departed from the commands of his lips; I have treasured the words of his mouth more than my daily bread.

Matthew 11
28 “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”
Luke chapter 21
33 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.
Romans chapter 10
17 Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ.
Mark chapter 13
31 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.
James chapter 1
25 But whoever looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues in it—not forgetting what they have heard, but doing it—they will be blessed in what they do.
James chapter 4
8 Come near to God and he will come near to you. Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded.
Isaiah chapter 45 verse 19
I have not spoken in secret, from somewhere in a land of darkness; I have not said to Jacob's descendants, 'Seek me in vain.' I, the LORD, speak the truth; I declare what is right.
Jeremiah chapter 9
24 but let the one who boasts boast about this:
that they have the understanding to know me,
that I am the Lord, who exercises kindness,
justice and righteousness on earth,
for in these I delight,”
declares the Lord.
Jeremiah chapter 5 verse 1
5 “Go up and down the streets of Jerusalem,
look around and consider,
search through her squares.
If you can find but one person
who deals honestly and seeks the truth,
I will forgive this city.

 

[ChristianFromKazakhstan]

Just citing the examples of the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of John, when the supper and day and hour of cruxificion is different, or, John in the gospel saying he was an eyewitness of the events, when scholars don't believe it was he who wrote ithe gospel, how am I supposed to believe in Jesus? I'm wavering on my belief.

Faith is blind in nature. You don't have to have a perfect record as basis of faith. On the contrary, the more obvious is the error, the more likely it will be believed in. People believe in funnier things, like aliens ruling our world etc.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

The Gospels were written to share the story of Christ and his teachings along with the promise of salvation offered by his sacrifice. Each Gospel was written for a different audience, so emphasizes different things, bit the lessons are the same.

The Gospels are not and never were intended to be biographies of Christ and should not be read that way.

 

[Albion]

Faith is blind in nature..

No, it isn't. The expression "blind faith" means to be critical of such a notion. Faith does not have to be based on conclusive evidence but it isn't blind, completely detached from common sense and all reason and evidence.

 

[GingerBeer]

Just citing the examples of the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of John, when the supper and day and hour of cruxificion is different, or, John in the gospel saying he was an eyewitness of the events, when scholars don't believe it was he who wrote ithe gospel, how am I supposed to believe in Jesus? I'm wavering on my belief.

Anyone who believes in Jesus knows that the bible is not Jesus. Bibles can have printing errors translation errors and copying errors. Bibles contain accounts from this and that person's perspective. Christians say "we know whom we have believed and are persuaded that he is able ..." so it is evident that Christian faith is in Christ and the bible is testimony to him. The bible is not the object of faith nor is it the foundation of faith it is helpful (or useful) for faith (see 2Timothy 3:14-17). That's quite different from saying that the bible has to be perfect or else faith is useless.

 

[Albion]

I wouldn't go that far. The Bible, for being divine revelation and the basis for doctrine in the churches, can reasonably enough be expected to be reliable.

I'm not offended, therefore, that someone should ask the kind of question that was posed by this thread.

 

[jax5434]

Just citing the examples of the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of John, when the supper and day and hour of cruxificion is different, or, John in the gospel saying he was an eyewitness of the events, when scholars don't believe it was he who wrote ithe gospel, how am I supposed to believe in Jesus? I'm wavering on my belief.

Just a few quick google searches will resolve your questions on what may appear to be some discrepancies in the gospel accounts. But if you give weight to these alleged discrepancies, should you not also give credence to the agreements? All the accounts agree that Jesus went to Jerusalem to celebrate Passover, that he ate a meal with his disciples, He was betrayed by one of them, he was tried by the Sanhedrin, sent to Pilate, was crucified, died, entombed and the rose again.

Is Jesus eating the Passover meal at 8:00 pm (as an example) so critical to your faith that if you discover it was really at 7:30 pm you will walk away from your faith? Because that is essentially what you are saying.

God Bless
Jax

 

[Halbhh]

Just citing the examples of the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of John, when the supper and day and hour of cruxificion is different, or, John in the gospel saying he was an eyewitness of the events, when scholars don't believe it was he who wrote ithe gospel, how am I supposed to believe in Jesus? I'm wavering on my belief.

First consider that eyewitnesses consistently do report differing details which are usually not the key things. In order to reconstruct what happened, one has to combine the various witnesses testimonies to see what they mutually agree on, and those are then what we should believe indeed happened. It's thought that the Gospel of Mark must have been written down around 68 to 70, before the sack of Jerusalem, and when many of the surviving eye witnesses to Christ in the community were beginning to die of old age, so that writing down their accounts would seem prudent, and thus the Gospel of Mark was put in writing at that time.

About views of 'scholars', they tend to be diverse and disagree with each other. But there will also usually there is a popular viewpoint many will try to adhere to in order to seem they are with the herd, etc. When someone tries to tell me Jesus is a myth, I'd perhaps believe them if I had not discovered first hands that what He says to do works amazingly well in life to improve my life, even radical things I thought could never work, like "love your enemy". Without that experience, and some others, sure I could just pick a scholar and believe whatever they say, that makes me feel clever.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Just citing the examples of the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of John, when the supper and day and hour of cruxificion is different, or, John in the gospel saying he was an eyewitness of the events, when scholars don't believe it was he who wrote ithe gospel, how am I supposed to believe in Jesus? I'm wavering on my belief.

Good points, Guerrier. But maybe think about this as a kind of thought experiment and opportunity for historical consideration of the Gospels.

If we assume (although I'm not saying this is the case for all four Gospels) that each Gospel is not the original, hand-written eyewitness testimony of the men which the Church has traditionally claimed were the writers, but that they are rather the compilations of previous materials written by the disciples of these previous men of Christ (which may be more likely), then it is likely that we'll have to also assume a teleology exists in the transmission of the inherent, even partially diverse contents of each Gospel.

Thus, EVEN THOUGH what we have may not be accurate in every jot and tittle, and EVEN THOUGH some of it may be slightly embellished, the central core was not just made up by the disciples of the original apostles; in fact, in looking at the cogency of the Gospels themselves and how they fit into and reflect 1st century life and times of Jesus' earliest followers, we'd highly suspect that the Gospels STILL do very much capture the basic, original teachings of both Jesus and the apostles, among other very early disciples.

And what would this mean, then? It would mean that even though the Gospels may not be eye-witness accounts themselves, written by the men they're associated with, they may actually fully reflect original ideas, messages, communication, and encounters with Jesus from several decades previous to their writing. In my mind, this would make the Gospels still very valuable to the Church in it's upholding of the common faith we have in the person and deity of Jesus Christ.

Just something to think about, Guerrier. Truth is still our treasure box, no matter how many hands it has passed through or how many coats of paint it may have had painted onto it. If you're holding the treasure box in your hands, you're still holding the truth as it is humanly perceivable.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[Halbhh]

Just citing the examples of the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of John, when the supper and day and hour of cruxificion is different, or, John in the gospel saying he was an eyewitness of the events, when scholars don't believe it was he who wrote ithe gospel, how am I supposed to believe in Jesus? I'm wavering on my belief.

Will we endure? Christ answered this ==

24 “Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. 26 But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.”

So, don't expect anyone to still be Christian years from now if they are not putting His Words into actions.

Doing what He said to do is what strengthens our faith.

.

 

[SaintNick]

Whenever I have doubts I take a look at how many people literally sold their souls to the devil for fame and fortune and received it and that in turn validates my belief in Christ. Because if there's an anti-christ surely Christ is real.

 

[Colter]

Just citing the examples of the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of John, when the supper and day and hour of cruxificion is different, or, John in the gospel saying he was an eyewitness of the events, when scholars don't believe it was he who wrote ithe gospel, how am I supposed to believe in Jesus? I'm wavering on my belief.

When humans have written imperfectly about every other event in history, why do we think that the books about Jesus should be documents of perfection? I've never believed in things the Jews wrote about their history, the flood, the creation story, killing all the Cannanites etc, yet I have faith in Jesus and the Father. IMOP, the Bible books are as imperfect as we should expect.

 

[Halbhh]

When humans have written imperfectly about every other event in history, why do we think that the books about Jesus should be documents of perfection? I've never believed in things the Jews wrote about their history, the flood, the creation story, killing all the Cannanites etc, yet I have faith in Jesus and the Father. IMOP, the Bible books are as imperfect as we should expect.

I could write an account of my childhood, from decades ago, and I suppose you could assert then it is imperfect. Surely we know some individuals make stuff up.

But when a bunch of witnesses are around for years after something remarkable, and one hears a few versions of the same events, one may notice how they overlap and agree.

Those pieces, the agreements, among diverse witnesses, have as much credibility as anything can have short of it's right in front of you right now.

You could learn about when the Gospel of Mark was written down, and then find out whether there would have been some older surviving eye witnesses still alive at that time.

For me, learning those helped give Mark some extra credibility, but....

But....the ultimate proof is really the right in front of you right now kind.

Like when you take one of the surprising and impossible seeming things Christ said, like "love your enemies", and actually do it.

And find out what happens.

I was amazed.

And that helped me to begin to wonder if it was real, and whether God might really be actual.

And so I began to seek God.

A very good moment for me.

 

[ChristianFromKazakhstan]

No, it isn't. The expression "blind faith" means to be critical of such a notion. Faith does not have to be based on conclusive evidence but it isn't blind, completely detached from common sense and all reason and evidence.

Blind in the sense that it's acceptance as true of information that was not experienced. Any faith is blind by definition, otherwise it's not faith. In that respect, much of science is faith as well. Something may seem to be correct, and thus you base your faith on this assumption, but what you believe in is not reality but an error. For example, it seemed perfectly logical to believe in the geocentric model of the Universe for the longest of time. It was strong faith based on observation in something utterly untrue.