Evidence for God from Science

I'll be upfront with how I came to this question:

My current line of thought is that Jesus came into the world, learned of Judaism (what I understand to be the Old Testament), realized that he did (or at least could) fulfill the Scriptures and took it upon himself to do so and succeeded. People wrote of his greatness and succeeded in getting down into the Bible all that one needs for salvation. (Which I understand to be basically that Jesus solves the problem of how to deserve reuniting with God.)

Now then, suppose that I come to a Biblical passage which doesn't undermine what I wrote above, and after some consideration I decide that this passage is actually not God's word. Does this necessarily (in the logical sense) mean I was not actually a Christian and, if not, are there certain ways in which this could mean I was not actually a Christian. (For example, positing that Jesus was simplifying a message for the time and that it must be reconciled with what could be considered more fundamental teachings.)

If so, what would you do if it seemed to you there was an inconsistency either within the Bible itself or between the Bible and reality?

I have to admit this stems from a categorical concern I have regarding whether I am a Christian or not (and thus perhaps this would have better been posed in the philosophy section). I have little problem with taking a leap of faith, but I'd rather not claim I am a Christian only to find out later that I categorically am not.

When a person becomes a Christian he is reborn spiritually and receives a new nature which is incapable of sin or error but as long as he is still in his old body he is capable of being mistaken. It would be possible for him to think that there is something in the Bible which is wrong but if someone rejects very much of the Bible it would be a sign that he is probably not a Christian.

When you spoke of doubting the Bible did you have any specific part in mind?

theophilus wrote:When a person becomes a Christian he is reborn spiritually and receives a new nature which is incapable of sin or error but as long as he is still in his old body he is capable of being mistaken. It would be possible for him to think that there is something in the Bible which is wrong but if someone rejects very much of the Bible it would be a sign that he is probably not a Christian.

When you spoke of doubting the Bible did you have any specific part in mind?

Well that seems reasonable enough to me.

And no, not really. The things that come to mind are largely open to interpretation and I've seen several Christians disagree about them.

plouiswork wrote: The things that come to mind are largely open to interpretation and I've seen several Christians disagree about them.

There is a big difference between believing something in the Bible is wrong and disagreeing with how another Christian about what it means.

plouiswork wrote:I'll be upfront with how I came to this question:

My current line of thought is that Jesus came into the world, learned of Judaism (what I understand to be the Old Testament), realized that he did (or at least could) fulfill the Scriptures and took it upon himself to do so and succeeded. People wrote of his greatness and succeeded in getting down into the Bible all that one needs for salvation. (Which I understand to be basically that Jesus solves the problem of how to deserve reuniting with God.)

Now then, suppose that I come to a Biblical passage which doesn't undermine what I wrote above, and after some consideration I decide that this passage is actually not God's word. Does this necessarily (in the logical sense) mean I was not actually a Christian and, if not, are there certain ways in which this could mean I was not actually a Christian. (For example, positing that Jesus was simplifying a message for the time and that it must be reconciled with what could be considered more fundamental teachings.)

If so, what would you do if it seemed to you there was an inconsistency either within the Bible itself or between the Bible and reality?

I have to admit this stems from a categorical concern I have regarding whether I am a Christian or not (and thus perhaps this would have better been posed in the philosophy section). I have little problem with taking a leap of faith, but I'd rather not claim I am a Christian only to find out later that I categorically am not.

It is hard for me as a Christian tobelieve some parts of the bible are wrong,even if theremight be different interpretations amongst Christians.I as a Christian believe all scripture was inspired by God and even in times when I did not understand what it was saying or was not sure about how others interpret it.I never thought it was wrong instead I believe that over time more of God's word is revealed true and if we do not have the full understanding yet,it may not have been revealed yet for us to know who is right and who is wrong.But this is rare because despite differences in interpretation there are still common beliefs amongst all true Christians that make up the root of Christian doctrine especially when it comes to Jesus and what he did for us.

I'm thinking that heresy -- teaching heresy is usually the situation -- taking Scripture and twisting it around to say things it isn't meant to say.

And I agree with 'abelcanesbrother' -- we don't need to / and many times Don't understand everything we read -- but God's Word Is definitely inerrant / inspired -- Society needs to get back To Biblical standards. And salvation is easily understood as is Christian living -- and the Holy Spirit teaches us and gives spiritual gifts to various people -- one of which is an added ability to explain Scripture in a clear, concise way. Pastors / teachers.

And Scripture Also tells a person to search the Scriptures for ourselves as well -- check out what any person is sharing. Is it actually Scriptural or not.