Why follow the Bible?

[DarkProphet]

Hi Dark Prophet,
Well, OK. Then personally why do you trust in the truth of the Bible? Asked ans answered. Next you will ask why I think trusting in the bible is the best course of action. After I answer that, you will ask why again rather than accept your question has been answered. Why???????

I get that you trust the Bible what I'm trying to figure out is why. With few exceptions, Christian I've asked this question has given me rather vague answers.

There are no-ex-Christians has nothing to do with it. Ditto for tares.

However, you are quite correct that Christians are to treat unrepentant sinners as among the lost, i.e non-Christians. Note I said "non-Christians" not ex-Christians.

It amounts to the same thing though, even if you don't acknowledge ex-Christians as existing, the net effect is the same. A Christian turns there back on a person they called a friend because that person no longer believes the same thing as they do. That is not a question of interpretation that is an observed fact. Whether or not Christians are called to do something else is besides the point. The Christians I've talked to in person and on this board have defended that action with that Biblical argument.

Keeping the Sabbath is part of the superseded Old Covenant.

But was it a sin then? Is it a sin now?

Now we are to "stretch out and rest upon Christ continuously."

Never heard that one before.

You should re-read by answer on sin. Folks are not, repeat not, held accountable for violating the stated laws or rules of God that they are unaware of.

Oh, I forgot. You're right it's that people are accountable because they already know the law even if they were never told. That's what it was. See from my point of view that makes no sense as the law is more complex then you make it out to be.

There is no confusion about knowing how you want to be treated and treating others less generously.

No there is no confusion there but sins go FAR beyond just that, homosexuality for example.

The Law of Moses, the Old Covenant still has a purpose, to lead folks to Christ by teaching them they are sinners, and therefore in need of mercy.

But are they still sins? Does that make anyone who works on the Sabbath a sinner?

At the end of the day, your assertion that Christianity says to shun ex-Christians is puffery.

A person who professes or has professed he or she has committed their life to Christ, yet whose faith is dead, i.e not accompanied by works worth of repentance, should be cultivated, lovingly shown the error of their ways, and provided with the witness of godly living rather than shunned.

I've only had interactions with three churches in person so perhaps it was just them but know that is not what I have personally observed.

What do you mean "works worth of repentance"?

How do you think each and every professing Christian, of which I am one, is to make their calling and election sure, i.e that they are spiritually born again?

I'm not sure. That's something I've always wondered but I don't think can be answered adequately. Many Christians say that they simply "know". All I know is that my friend was a firm believer until he looked into the claims and history of Bible.

 

[Sketcher]

It's full of timelessly good lessons. If everybody followed it more, we would have a much more civil and just world, not to mention that so many more people would also have a knowledge of God.

 

[Van]

Hi Dark Prophet, why say "Christians" (which refers to unknown and unpublished sources most would consider vague) give vague answers? I said trusting in the bible seemed to me to be the best course of action. Or how about Jesus loves me this I know, for the bible tells me so. Or how about God's grace is sufficient for me. At some point, after you ask why, why, why, we will return to "trusting in the bible seemed to me to be the best course of action."

Try this, tell me why you do not trust in the Bible. When you give me your answer, assume I say "yes but why did you and then repeat your answer. Figure I do this 4 times. Now ask yourself, am I looking for an answer or trying to justify that my decision is superior to yours.

I see no reason to continue, I say we are not to turn our back or shun, and you repeat the fiction. Are you exploring Christianity or making up a strawman to knock down?

Failing to keep the sabbath was a sin, violating the express word of God, under the Old Covenant, but it is not a sin now, for we now rest in the Lord of the Sabbath.

You claim some unverifiable observation as an observed fact. I said that was not the Christian response, based on scripture. You provide no reference to any scripture to support your false assertion, you just repeat it. Give me a break. I can tell you that rather than turning my back on a person that had claimed to be a Christian, they turned their back on me. This sort of exchange quickly degenerates into a he said, he said exchange. Bottom line, Christians behave according to scripture, or their actions are not Christian. Pretty simple really.

Stop bringing up homosexual behavior because it is considered controversial and not to be discussed on this forum.

You can refer to a vague argument by others that say to shun non-christians till the cows come home. Scripture says we are to treat them with kindness and gentleness and do what we can to help them trust fully in Christ. Its put up or shut up time.
Scripture says "if any among you strays from the truth, and one turns him back....
So instead of shunning, we are to help save the sinners soul from death and help cover a multitude of sin.

Lets consider the books of the Corinthians. They concern a person who claimed to be a Christian. Paul says not to associate with immoral people who claim to be Christian but advocates with words and or deeds un-Christian behavior. 1 Corinthians 5:9-13

Now compare this passage to Romans 16:17-18. Here it is clear the offensive person is not and never was a Christian, and their behavior is hindering the ministry and unity of the church.

Finally lets look at 2 Thessalonians 3:6. Here we see that we are to keep away from the one who leads an "unruly life." So we are not to be "enablers" that tolerate ungodliness in the name of fellowship because that would hinder the testimony of the church. Yet we should not regard him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.

 

[Jpark]

Never mind.

 

[DarkProphet]

Hi Dark Prophet, why say "Christians" (which refers to unknown and unpublished sources most would consider vague) give vague answers? I said trusting in the bible seemed to me to be the best course of action. Or how about Jesus loves me this I know, for the bible tells me so. Or how about God's grace is sufficient for me. At some point, after you ask why, why, why, we will return to "trusting in the bible seemed to me to be the best course of action."

Try this, tell me why you do not trust in the Bible. When you give me your answer, assume I say "yes but why did you and then repeat your answer. Figure I do this 4 times. Now ask yourself, am I looking for an answer or trying to justify that my decision is superior to yours.

It's not quite the same thing though, I can more give concrete answers as to why I don't trust the Bible. The factual errors, the internal contradictions, and the external contradictions are all factors in why I don't trust the Bible. Obviously these are not as big factors for Christians, that's why I want to why you DO trust the Bible.

I see no reason to continue, I say we are not to turn our back or shun, and you repeat the fiction. Are you exploring Christianity or making up a strawman to knock down?

I'm reporting what I've seen.

Failing to keep the sabbath was a sin, violating the express word of God, under the Old Covenant, but it is not a sin now, for we now rest in the Lord of the Sabbath.

"rest in the Lost of the Sabbath"?

In anycase you agree that transgressions against God are more complex then just the golden rule and that they have changed over time.

You claim some unverifiable observation as an observed fact. I said that was not the Christian response, based on scripture. You provide no reference to any scripture to support your false assertion, you just repeat it. Give me a break.

I never said it was a valid "Christian" response I said that is what Christians I've seen do.

I can tell you that rather than turning my back on a person that had claimed to be a Christian, they turned their back on me.

They turned their back on "you" personally?

This sort of exchange quickly degenerates into a he said, he said exchange. Bottom line, Christians behave according to scripture, or their actions are not Christian. Pretty simple really.

It should be simple but differing interpretations make it more complex then that.

Stop bringing up homosexual behavior because it is considered controversial and not to be discussed on this forum.

The point is that is clearly considered a sin but if you were not told explicitly it was a sin you might not know.

You can refer to a vague argument by others that say to shun non-christians till the cows come home. Scripture says we are to treat them with kindness and gentleness and do what we can to help them trust fully in Christ. Its put up or shut up time.
Scripture says "if any among you strays from the truth, and one turns him back....
So instead of shunning, we are to help save the sinners soul from death and help cover a multitude of sin.

Lets consider the books of the Corinthians. They concern a person who claimed to be a Christian. Paul says not to associate with immoral people who claim to be Christian but advocates with words and or deeds un-Christian behavior. 1 Corinthians 5:9-13

Now compare this passage to Romans 16:17-18. Here it is clear the offensive person is not and never was a Christian, and their behavior is hindering the ministry and unity of the church.

Finally lets look at 2 Thessalonians 3:6. Here we see that we are to keep away from the one who leads an "unruly life." So we are not to be "enablers" that tolerate ungodliness in the name of fellowship because that would hinder the testimony of the church. Yet we should not regard him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.

With the exception of the last sentence that is the argument in the a nutshell. I think the only difference is that I call them ex-Christian and you don't.

Regardless, you trust the Bibles view on this issue and what I want to learn from all this is why.

 

[Bible2]

How does that work? I know the gnostic writings were rejected as well as some others but on what grounds?

Gnostic writings are rejected by Biblical Christians as not from God, because Gnosticism reviles the God of the Bible (YHWH) as an evil god, whereas Jesus Christ confirmed that YHWH is the one true God (Mark 12:29-31, quoting from Deuteronomy 6:4-5 and Leviticus 19:18). Also, Gnosticism denies that Christ is in the flesh (2 John 1:7), whereas Jesus Christ affirmed that he is in the flesh (Luke 24:39, John 1:14, Romans 1:3, Hebrews 2:17).

Gnosticism was one of the greatest enemies of the early church, and some Gnostic ideas will soon be revived worldwide by the coming Antichrist, who will take over the whole world and make war against Biblical Christians and overcome them (Revelation 13:7-10) in every nation (Matthew 24:9-13). The Antichrist's False Prophet will perform amazing miracles by which he will deceive the whole world (Revelation 13:13-14) into worshipping the Antichrist (the beast) and Lucifer (the dragon, the devil) (Revelation 13:4,8). The Antichrist, like the Gnostics, will utterly revile YHWH (Revelation 13:6, Daniel 11:36) and will deny that Christ is in the flesh (1 John 4:3). The Antichrist will also deny that Jesus is the Christ (1 John 2:22). The Antichrist could say that (the non-flesh) Lucifer is the Christ, for the name "Lucifer" (Isaiah 14:12) means "the morning star", and Christ is the morning star (Revelation 22:16). Of course, the truth is that Lucifer fell from his office of morning star (Isaiah 14:12) and became Satan (cf. Luke 10:18); Jesus the Christ has taken over the office of morning star (Revelation 22:16). Nonetheless, the Antichrist could say that Lucifer is the Christ and the true God of mankind, and that the False Prophet of the Antichrist is Jesus, returned to point the world to the true Christ/God. The Antichrist could say that he (the Antichrist) is the human/divine "Son" of Lucifer, and so is to be worshipped as God along with Lucifer (Revelation 13:4,8).

This separation of the idea of the "Christ" from the idea of the human/divine "Son" of God has precedent in the false teachings of Islam, which says that Jesus is the Christ (Koran 3:45) but denies that he is the human/divine "Son" of God (Koran 9:30, Koran 4:171, Koran 5:72). Also, Islam says that Jesus is a miracle-working great prophet who will return in the end times to bring the whole world into the worship of the true God. Also, Islam denies the crucifixion of Christ for our sins (Koran 4:157), something which the Antichrist will also no doubt deny. (This is not to say that Islam will be the religion of the Antichrist, who will instead be a Gnostic Luciferian, but that some the ideas of Islam, just as some of the ideas of Gnosticism, could be employed by the Antichrist and his False Prophet in order to deceive the world.)

So someone can only understand the Bible after they already believe?

Understanding the Bible and believing it occur simultaneously after a human has been granted some measure of God's own Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:11-13), Jesus Christ's own mind (1 Corinthians 2:16). For the natural minds of humans can only see the things of God as foolishness (1 Corinthians 2:14, 1 Corinthians 1:18), because of the wholly-corrupt nature of all humans in their natural state (Romans 3:10-12). This corrupt nature makes it impossible for any human to ever come into faith through his own will (Romans 9:16, John 1:13, 6:44) or through his own intellect (1 Corinthians 1:18-2:16). Instead, faith comes only to the elect (Acts 13:48) wholly by God's grace as a miraculous gift from God (Ephesians 2:8, John 6:65, 1 Corinthians 3:5). The elect are those individuals who were chosen (elected) by God before the foundation of the world to become saved at some point during their lifetime (Ephesians 1:4-11). The unelect are those individuals who cannot possibly ever believe in Jesus Christ and be saved (John 8:42-47, John 10:26, Matthew 13:38-42), not because they are any worse than the elect (Romans 3:9-12), but because God did not choose to show them his mercy (Romans 9:15-22).

All that was a long time ago with little information on the credibility of the writers. On what basis do you trust these writers?

The different books of the New Testament were all written for the early church, which knew and trusted the writers (and so kept their writings) because the writers were eyewitnesses of Jesus Christ (2 Peter 1:16, 1 John 1:1-4, 1 Corinthians 9:1, John 19:35, John 21:24, Luke 24:48, Revelation 1:17-19) or their immediate followers (Luke 1:1-2, Hebrews 2:3). Today, Biblical Christians can trust the writers because the early church knew them and trusted them, and because the writers agree completely with the Old Testament (Acts 17:11, Acts 26:22-23), and because their writings pass the test of Biblical Christians being able to (as it were) recognize the voice of Jesus Christ in what the writings are saying (John 10:27). Biblical Christians are able to recognize if something which is said is from Jesus Christ (John 10:4) or from "a stranger", and they will not follow the latter (John 10:5).

I don't know what you mean by "teaching" but there are false facts in the Bible.

What has been proven to be a false fact in the Bible?

What does it mean to deny part of his word? Because I've seen Christians ignore LARGE sections of the Bible that they don't agree with.

Denying part of God's word the Bible means to say it isn't true. One of the prime aims of the devil is to get humans to deny God's word the Bible and start believing something else which sounds better to humans (Genesis 3, Matthew 16:21-23), usually something which allows humans to continue in their lusts (2 Timothy 4:2-4, 1 Timothy 4:1-2) and which appeals to the devilish pride of humans, wanting to be as important as God (Isaiah 14:12-15, 1 Timothy 3:6). Biblical Christians accept every part of the Bible because all of its teachings were given by the inspiration of God, so that all of it is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly equipped to perform all good works (2 Timothy 3:16-17). It is only the Bible which is able to make humans wise unto salvation through faith which is in Jesus Christ (2 Timothy 3:15, Romans 10:17, Acts 13:48, James 1:18, 1 Peter 1:23-25).

 

[DarkProphet]

Gnostic writings are rejected by Biblical Christians as not from God, because Gnosticism reviles the God of the Bible (YHWH) as an evil god, whereas Jesus Christ confirmed that YHWH is the one true God (Mark 12:29-31, quoting from Deuteronomy 6:4-5 and Leviticus 19:18). Also, Gnosticism denies that Christ is in the flesh (2 John 1:7), whereas Jesus Christ affirmed that he is in the flesh (Luke 24:39, John 1:14, Romans 1:3, Hebrews 2:17).

Gnosticism was one of the greatest enemies of the early church, and some Gnostic ideas will soon be revived worldwide by the coming Antichrist, who will take over the whole world and make war against Biblical Christians and overcome them (Revelation 13:7-10) in every nation (Matthew 24:9-13). The Antichrist's False Prophet will perform amazing miracles by which he will deceive the whole world (Revelation 13:13-14) into worshipping the Antichrist (the beast) and Lucifer (the dragon, the devil) (Revelation 13:4,8). The Antichrist, like the Gnostics, will utterly revile YHWH (Revelation 13:6, Daniel 11:36) and will deny that Christ is in the flesh (1 John 4:3). The Antichrist will also deny that Jesus is the Christ (1 John 2:22). The Antichrist could say that (the non-flesh) Lucifer is the Christ, for the name "Lucifer" (Isaiah 14:12) means "the morning star", and Christ is the morning star (Revelation 22:16). Of course, the truth is that Lucifer fell from his office of morning star (Isaiah 14:12) and became Satan (cf. Luke 10:18); Jesus the Christ has taken over the office of morning star (Revelation 22:16). Nonetheless, the Antichrist could say that Lucifer is the Christ and the true God of mankind, and that the False Prophet of the Antichrist is Jesus, returned to point the world to the true Christ/God. The Antichrist could say that he (the Antichrist) is the human/divine "Son" of Lucifer, and so is to be worshipped as God along with Lucifer (Revelation 13:4,8).

This separation of the idea of the "Christ" from the idea of the human/divine "Son" of God has precedent in the false teachings of Islam, which says that Jesus is the Christ (Koran 3:45) but denies that he is the human/divine "Son" of God (Koran 9:30, Koran 4:171, Koran 5:72). Also, Islam says that Jesus is a miracle-working great prophet who will return in the end times to bring the whole world into the worship of the true God. Also, Islam denies the crucifixion of Christ for our sins (Koran 4:157), something which the Antichrist will also no doubt deny. (This is not to say that Islam will be the religion of the Antichrist, who will instead be a Gnostic Luciferian, but that some the ideas of Islam, just as some of the ideas of Gnosticism, could be employed by the Antichrist and his False Prophet in order to deceive the world.)

So basically the Gnostic writings are invalid because they run counter to the canon?

Understanding the Bible and believing it occur simultaneously after a human has been granted some measure of God's own Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:11-13), Jesus Christ's own mind (1 Corinthians 2:16). For the natural minds of humans can only see the things of God as foolishness (1 Corinthians 2:14, 1 Corinthians 1:18), because of the wholly-corrupt nature of all humans in their natural state (Romans 3:10-12). This corrupt nature makes it impossible for any human to ever come into faith through his own will (Romans 9:16, John 1:13, 6:44) or through his own intellect (1 Corinthians 1:18-2:16). Instead, faith comes only to the elect (Acts 13:48) wholly by God's grace as a miraculous gift from God (Ephesians 2:8, John 6:65, 1 Corinthians 3:5). The elect are those individuals who were chosen (elected) by God before the foundation of the world to become saved at some point during their lifetime (Ephesians 1:4-11). The unelect are those individuals who cannot possibly ever believe in Jesus Christ and be saved (John 8:42-47, John 10:26, Matthew 13:38-42), not because they are any worse than the elect (Romans 3:9-12), but because God did not choose to show them his mercy (Romans 9:15-22).

So God picks who gets to be a Christian and who doesn't and at the same time who gets to understand the Bible?

The different books of the New Testament were all written for the early church, which knew and trusted the writers (and so kept their writings) because the writers were eyewitnesses of Jesus Christ (2 Peter 1:16, 1 John 1:1-4, 1 Corinthians 9:1, John 19:35, John 21:24, Luke 24:48, Revelation 1:17-19) or their immediate followers (Luke 1:1-2, Hebrews 2:3). Today, Biblical Christians can trust the writers because the early church knew them and trusted them, and because the writers agree completely with the Old Testament (Acts 17:11, Acts 26:22-23), and because their writings pass the test of Biblical Christians being able to (as it were) recognize the voice of Jesus Christ in what the writings are saying (John 10:27).

I guess by extension you are trusting the early churches judgment on the credibility of the early writers but if Christians can really tell the difference then that wouldn't be an issue.

Biblical Christians are able to recognize if something which is said is from Jesus Christ (John 10:4) or from "a stranger", and they will not follow the latter (John 10:5).

Everything up to here kinda makes sense but how would an early Christian tell the difference without the Bible to guide them? How would they not fall into the trap of only keeping the parts that they agreed with already?

What has been proven to be a false fact in the Bible?

A quick example would be the Bible claiming that PI is equal to 3 or that the world is a circle (rather then a sphere). These things by themselves are not a big deal given the time period in which they were written but it does lend doubt to the idea of divine inspiration. Note that these are only two examples out of many and there are also the contradictions to consider.

Denying part of God's word the Bible means to say it isn't true. One of the prime aims of the devil is to get humans to deny God's word the Bible and start believing something else which sounds better to humans (Genesis 3, Matthew 16:21-23), usually something which allows humans to continue in their lusts (2 Timothy 4:2-4, 1 Timothy 4:1-2) and which appeals to the devilish pride of humans, wanting to be as important as God (Isaiah 14:12-15, 1 Timothy 3:6).

Would the snippets of the Bible count as something that sounds better? That's what I've seen Christians do, only look at the parts of the Bible that agree with their own view.

Biblical Christians accept every part of the Bible because all of its teachings were given by the inspiration of God, so that all of it is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly equipped to perform all good works (2 Timothy 3:16-17). It is only the Bible which is able to make humans wise unto salvation through faith which is in Jesus Christ (2 Timothy 3:15, Romans 10:17, Acts 13:48, James 1:18, 1 Peter 1:23-25).

And you trust the Bible because the early Church trusted the Bible? Given how many denominations and interpretations there are today how can you be sure that the early church got it right?

 

[Supreme]

I follow the Bible because it inspires, exites and interests me. It's the closest, most accurate thing to a book regarding God I believe you can get.

 

[Van]

Hi Dark Prophet, referring to factual errors, internal contradictions, and external contradictions seems rather vague. Why are these overblown assertions important to you?

No I do not agree that transgressions against God are "complex." Legalism creates complexity, but that basically is the construct of superficial devotion to God.

It is one thing to report Christians sometimes behave in un-Christian ways, and quite another to assert sinful behavior represents Christianity.

I said Lord of the Sabbath, not lost of the Sabbath.

You say you are more concerned with what "Christians" do rather than what they are supposed to do? But the forum is supposed to explore Christianity, rather than un-Christianity.

To repeat, God judges the lost based on what they know. Lets take coveting for example. Lets say you covet your neighbors lovely wife. You do not know "thou shall not covet" command because you have never even heard about the God of the Bible.
But you see your neighbor looking intently at your wife and you do not like it. So even though you do not want your neighbor to desire your wife, you think about his wife. That is what earns the wrath of God without knowledge of the Bible.

The last sentence was scripture - 2 Thessalonians 3:15.

 

[DarkProphet]

Hi Dark Prophet, referring to factual errors, internal contradictions, and external contradictions seems rather vague.

I gave an example of a factual error above, an internal contradiction is something where the Bible contradicts itself. For example, the conflicting stories on what happened after the resurrection. A external contradiction is something that should be evident in history but isn't. The flood, the extra day, the earthquake and the dead rising are examples of this. I know there are Christian fixes to these problems like ignoring sections or downgrading events but those are patch solutions. Many Christians I talk to acknowledge these kinds of problems exist but that it doesn't bother them.

Why are these overblown assertions important to you?

It goes against the idea of divine inspiration. If these common mistakes are in the Bible then what does that say about the credibility of the Bible?

No I do not agree that transgressions against God are "complex." Legalism creates complexity, but that basically is the construct of superficial devotion to God.

Parts of the Bible can get rather legalistic.

It is one thing to report Christians sometimes behave in un-Christian ways, and quite another to assert sinful behavior represents Christianity.

I am reporting that Christians are behaving in "un-Christian" ways and are using the Bible to justify that. "Un-Christian" is in quotes because they claim that they are acting in a Christian way the same way you claim that they are not.

I said Lord of the Sabbath, not lost of the Sabbath.

I never heard that saying before.

You say you are more concerned with what "Christians" do rather than what they are supposed to do? But the forum is supposed to explore Christianity, rather than un-Christianity.

Christians have differing opinions on the Bible but they all reference the Bible. Understanding why they trust the Bible is a step in exploring Christianity.

To repeat, God judges the lost based on what they know. Lets take coveting for example. Lets say you covet your neighbors lovely wife. You do not know "thou shall not covet" command because you have never even heard about the God of the Bible.
But you see your neighbor looking intently at your wife and you do not like it. So even though you do not want your neighbor to desire your wife, you think about his wife. That is what earns the wrath of God without knowledge of the Bible.

That falls under the Golden rule. I would a agree that is self evident but the old testament had a large section on rather arbitrary rules that you say were sins at the time. How would someone from that time know that eating shellfish was an abomination if they didn't know about the Bible?

The last sentence was scripture - 2 Thessalonians 3:15.

That seems to be in a section about freeloading not about tares.

 

[Van]

Hi Dark Prophet, remind me of the factual error.

Comparing one gospel to another and them claiming contradictions is behavior of folks who are working to demonstrate why they reject the bible. The gospels agree that God exists, that Jesus is the savior, and that by trusting fully in Him and making Him lord of our lives, we will make the most of our wretched lives.

History records lots of huge floods like at the end of ice ages. Again these objections reflect an effort to find fault to justify rejection of the central theme.

Legalism is the construct of superficial devotion to God.

You claim Christians made scriptural arguments to justify turning their back, and I showed you the scriptural argument you made has no basis in scripture.

Yes, I believe you have never heard of Jesus being the Lord of the Sabbath, or entering His rest. But I suspect you have a pretty good idea of what the Bible says you need to do to enter His rest.

Yes, all us Christians have an imperfect understanding of the Bible, but we do have the main idea. Your focus on the minutia suggests an effort to undermine rather than understand.

Dark Prophet, it is obvious you are simply posting opposition. I said, and now for the third time, if a person does not know it is a sin to eat shell fish, it is not a sin to eat shell fish. Please do not continue to pretend this is too much for you to understand.

File this away too, the whole Old Covenant can be summarized by "Love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself." This is what you reject, but I accept.

I did not see the subject of freeloading as central to the passage, so your effort at dismissal seems to demonstrate a resistance to the truth. Verse 3:14 says if anyone does not obey our instructions in this letter - that would include freeloading but not exclude an unrepentant sinner claiming sinful behavior is Christian behavior. Next it says do not associate with him "to put him to shame." So the effort is to bring him to his senses, not to mistreat him, for we are not to grow weary of doing good.

 

[Bible2]

So basically the Gnostic writings are invalid because they run counter to the canon?

In considering the Gnostic writings invalid, Biblical Christians do not focus so much on the idea of "the canon" in itself as on why the writings in the canon were included in the canon, and why the Gnostic writings were excluded. The different writings in the New Testament were all written for the early church, which knew and trusted the writers (and so kept their writings) because the writers were eyewitnesses of Jesus Christ (2 Peter 1:16, 1 John 1:1-4, 1 Corinthians 9:1, John 19:35, John 21:24, Luke 24:48, Revelation 1:17-19) or their immediate followers (Luke 1:1-2, Hebrews 2:3). The Gnostic wiritings, on the other hand, contradicted the testimony of the eyewitnesses of Jesus Christ with regard to what he taught. For the Gnostic writings reviled YHWH as an evil god whereas the eyewitnesses of Jesus Christ showed that Jesus Christ confirmed that YHWH is the one true God (Mark 12:29-31, quoting from Deuteronomy 6:4-5 and Leviticus 19:18). Also, the Gnostic writings denied that Christ is in the flesh (2 John 1:7), whereas the eyewitnesses of Jesus Christ showed that Jesus Christ affirmed that he is in the flesh (Luke 24:39, John 1:14, Romans 1:3, Hebrews 2:17). Also, the Gnostic writings claimed that the Old Testament was to be rejected because it was written by followers of YHWH, whereas the eyewitnesses of Jesus Christ showed that Jesus Christ confirmed that all of the Old Testament is true (Matthew 5:17-18, Luke 24:44-48). Also, even where the Gnostic writings teach something not in the Bible which does not contradict what the eyewitnesses of Jesus Christ showed that Jesus Christ taught, the Gnostic writings still do not pass the test of Biblical Christians being able to recognize if something which is taught is from Jesus Christ (John 10:4,27) or from "a stranger" (John 10:5). Biblical Christians are able to do this because they have received God's own Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:11-13), Jesus Christ's own mind (1 Corinthians 2:16).

So God picks who gets to be a Christian and who doesn't and at the same time who gets to understand the Bible?

Yes. The wholly-corrupt nature of all humans in their natural state (Romans 3:10-12) makes it impossible for any human to ever become a Biblical Christian through his own will (Romans 9:16, John 1:13, 6:44) or his own intellect (1 Corinthians 1:18-2:16). The natural minds of humans can only see the things of God as foolishness (1 Corinthians 2:14, 1 Corinthians 1:18). Biblical Christian faith can come only by God's grace as a miraculous gift from God (Ephesians 2:8, John 6:65, 1 Corinthians 3:5), and he gives this gift only to his elect (Acts 13:48), who are those individuals who were chosen (elected) by him before the foundation of the world to become saved by him at some point during their lifetime (Ephesians 1:4-11).

I guess by extension you are trusting the early churches judgment on the credibility of the early writers but if Christians can really tell the difference then that wouldn't be an issue.

Biblical Christians can trust the early church's judgment on the credibility of the writers of the New Testament for the reasons which have been given: the early church knew those writers to be eyewitnesses of Jesus Christ (2 Peter 1:16, 1 John 1:1-4, 1 Corinthians 9:1, John 19:35, John 21:24, Luke 24:48, Revelation 1:17-19) or their immediate followers (Luke 1:1-2, Hebrews 2:3). Also, the early church had received God's own Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:11-13), Jesus Christ's own mind (1 Corinthians 2:16), so it was able to know whether a teaching of the writers was truly from Jesus Christ or not (John 10:27,4,5), just as Biblical Christians can still know this today for the same reason. Also, Biblical Christians today, just as the early church did, can confirm for themselves that the writers of the New Testament agree with what the Old Testament taught and prophesied (Acts 17:11, Acts 26:22-23, Luke 24:44-48).

Everything up to here kinda makes sense but how would an early Christian tell the difference without the Bible to guide them? How would they not fall into the trap of only keeping the parts that they agreed with already?

Early Biblical Christians had the Old Testament to guide them. As has been said, they were able to check every teaching claiming to be from Jesus Christ against what the Old Testament had taught and prophesied (Acts 17:11, Acts 26:22-23, Luke 24:44-48, 2 Timothy 3:15-16). Also, even if a teaching didn't contradict the Old Testament, because early Biblical Christians received God's own Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:11-13), Jesus Christ's own mind (1 Corinthians 2:16), they were able to know whether such a teaching was truly from Jesus Christ (John 10:27,4) or only from some "stranger" (John 10:5).

A quick example would be the Bible claiming that PI is equal to 3 or that the world is a circle (rather then a sphere). These things by themselves are not a big deal given the time period in which they were written but it does lend doubt to the idea of divine inspiration.

The divinely-inspired Bible (2 Timothy 3:16) doesn't claim that pi is equal to 3. All 1 Kings 7:23 says is that a brass basin 10 cubits in diameter had a circumference of 30 cubits, which could simply have been rounded down from 31.4 cubits. Or the 10 cubits could have been rounded up from 9.55 cubits. Or neither the 10-cubit figure nor the 30-cubit figure was meant to be taken as an exact figure accurate to the hundredth of a cubit. For 1 Kings 7:23 is not giving an exact blueprint description of the basin, nor is it giving a geometry lesson; it is simply giving a general account of how big the basin was. Also, the Bible doesn't claim that the earth is a circle instead of a sphere. Isaiah 40:22 is simply referring poetically to the circle of the horizon as it appears from the surface of the earth.

Note that these are only two examples out of many and there are also the contradictions to consider.

What has been proven to be a false fact or a contradiction in the Bible?

Would the snippets of the Bible count as something that sounds better?

Snippets of the Bible wouldn't count as "something that sounds better" in the sense that that phrase was intended, insofar as when it was said that "one of the prime aims of the devil is to get humans to deny God's word the Bible and start believing something else which sounds better to humans (Genesis 3, Matthew 16:21-23)", by "to deny God's word the Bible" was meant to say that the Bible isn't true, and by "start believing something else" was meant to start believing something else besides the Bible which contradicts the Bible.

That's what I've seen Christians do, only look at the parts of the Bible that agree with their own view.

Can you give an example of Christians only looking at the parts of the Bible that agree with their own view? Biblical Christians look at every part of the Bible because all of its teachings were given by the inspiration of God, so that all of it is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly equipped to perform all good works (2 Timothy 3:16-17). It is only the Bible which is able to make humans wise unto salvation through faith which is in Jesus Christ (2 Timothy 3:15, Romans 10:17, Acts 13:48, James 1:18, 1 Peter 1:23-25).

And you trust the Bible because the early Church trusted the Bible?

Because the early church trusted the Bible is one of the reasons that Biblical Christians trust the Bible. Another reason which has been given is that Biblical Christians have received God's own Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:11-13), Jesus Christ's own mind (1 Corinthians 2:16), and so are able to know that the teachings in the Bible are truly from God (John 10:27,4,5). Another reason which has been given is that Biblical Christians can confirm for themselves that the New Testament agrees with what the Old Testament taught and prophesied (Acts 17:11, Acts 26:22-23, Luke 24:44-48).

Given how many denominations and interpretations there are today how can you be sure that the early church got it right?

Biblical Christians are not to divide themselves into denominations (1 Corinthians 1:12-13). And Biblical Christians cannot interpret any one verse in the Bible in a way which contradicts what the Bible teaches as a whole. Biblical Christians can be certain that the early church got it right with regard to keeping the writings of the New Testament, for the reasons given above: the early church knew the writers of the New Testament to be eyewitnesses of Jesus Christ (2 Peter 1:16, 1 John 1:1-4, 1 Corinthians 9:1, John 19:35, John 21:24, Luke 24:48, Revelation 1:17-19) or their immediate followers (Luke 1:1-2, Hebrews 2:3). Also, the early church had received God's own Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:11-13), Jesus Christ's own mind (1 Corinthians 2:16), so it was able to know whether a teaching of the writers was truly from Jesus Christ or not (John 10:27,4,5), just as Biblical Christians can still know this today for the same reason. And Biblical Christians today, just as the early church did, can confirm for themselves that the writers of the New Testament agree with what the Old Testament taught and prophesied (Acts 17:11, Acts 26:22-23, Luke 24:44-48).

For some examples of how the New Testament gospel was foretold in the Old Testament (Acts 26:22-23, 1 Corinthians 15:1-5, Luke 24:44-47), Christ's death for our sins was foretold in Isaiah 53 (cf. Acts 8:32-35, 1 Peter 2:24), Christ's crucifixion experience was foretold in Psalms 22 (cf. Matthew 27:46, Matthew 27:35), Christ not remaining dead was foretold in Psalms 16:10 (cf. Acts 2:27,31), Christ rising from the dead on the third day was foretold in Hosea 6:2 (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:4, Luke 24:46, Colossians 2:12), that Christ's New Covenant gospel (Matthew 26:28) would go forth to save both Jews and Gentiles (Acts 26:23b, Luke 24:47) was foretold in Isaiah 49:6 and Isaiah 42:6. Also, Moses foretold of Christ in Deuteronomy 18:15,18,19 (cf. Acts 3:22-24). Jesus fulfilled Zechariah 9:9 in Matthew 21:4-11. Psalms 118:22 was fulfilled at Jesus' first coming (Acts 4:10-12). Isaiah 7:14 was fulfilled by Jesus' virgin birth (Matthew 1:22-25). Isaiah 9:1-2 was fulfilled in Matthew 4:12-23. Psalms 110:4 is fulfilled by Jesus' high priesthood (Hebrews 6:20). Zechariah 6:11-12 and Zechariah 3:8-9 meant by type that the Christ would be a high priest named "Joshua"/"Jesus" ("Jesus" is simply the Greek form of the Hebrew name "Joshua"). "The Branch" is a title of the Christ (Isaiah 4:2-6, Jeremiah 33:14-17). And where it says "upon one stone shall be seven eyes" (Zechariah 3:9), even this is fulfilled by Jesus, the stone (1 Peter 2:7), who is at one point symbolically shown as having seven eyes (Revelation 5:6).