Apparently this is conflicting for some Christians.  Are we to live by reason or by faith?  Do you rely upon your own intellect to make rational conclusions and to reject that which doesn't make sense OR do you accept the teachings of the Bible without regard to logic and reason, even if it does not make sense?  
Before I expand on this, I would like to hear (read?) your thoughts.  Please try and give reasons for your answer/s.  Is it the one, the other or both?  Why?  Or if you're not sure, or if it's (maybe) confusing, let's hear why you think that way.

cobsidering its called the christian faith id have thought the requirement was self evident.
if it were fact driven the bible would list sources, places and dates.

The Bible tends to list its source whenever it uses one whether through character speech or by notation.  It also does list things by place and time as appropriate for when the books in it were written.

If anything we should be blaming a committee for having books removed from the Bible simply for not liking the fact that books didn't agree with their personal ideals when those books should have been left in the Bible if even just to provide reference books to those that were left in and don't fully make sense without the books that were removed.


If I understand how the Bible puts faith correctly than you are suppose to use reason to obtain proper faith,  Faith without reason is blind faith and would be a blasphemy against God.

"Come now, let us reason together, says the Lord" (Isaiah 1:18a)

Faith and reason are cooperative to one another. We believe in a reasonable faith. God is able to reveal truth to us that reasonable in our understand so that we can actually come to understand and to know Him. Faith, as defined in Hebrews 11:1, is "the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things to come." There has to be some reason that you have that assurance before having faith in God. From reason, we can also understand why other religions break down in terms of their beliefs. That is why some people think that philosophy is a better way of being able to believe in God, because they think it is logically more convincing to believe in God. (though I personally still affirm that history and science are great ways to find truth in God as well)



If you look at Jesus, Peter, Paul, Stephen, Apollo and the way that they talk about gospel, they used reason. Jesus corrected the teachers of the law, Paul reasoned to the Athenians about the Resurrection of the Body and about the Gospel, and Peter was the one who said to "be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have" (1 Peter 3:15). You even see some of scripture argue about doctrine in a logical way. You see this done in James, Hebrews, and many of Peter and Paul's letters.



Reason is also used to know what is considered false understanding and false doctrine of Christianity. If there is something that fabricated as true doctrine when in fact it is not, it would not be consistent with other true doctrines nor would they be consistent to scripture and it would logically break down. I would even argue that you don't really have faith if you are just blindly believing it. Faith and reason go hand to hand.

thenumberone : The reason it doesn't is obvious (just like the reason the book of Mormon does is likewise obvious). Ancient writers simply did not write like we do. This is not only true of the Bible but anything from antiquity. The Gospel stories, for example, are not like modern day news reports. They are ancient historiography, which is different from modern day biographies and such. I wonder why people make this ridiculous claim about the Bible and never about other historical works/people? Take Julius Caesar, for example. There is far more reliable written evidence that Jesus lived than Caesar, yet no one calls into question his existence or his actions/motives/whatever. (I realize I'm overstating my case, but I hope the point is still made.)

whitesox51 :
the bible is not supported by various, proven sources.
caesar is

thenumberone : Nice. What's your evidence? I can think of several 1st century non-Christian writers who mention Jesus off the top of my head (Tacitus, Josephus, Suetonius, etc.), as well as the textual attestation covering a huge geographical area. There is a ton of archaeological evidence vindicating the place/times of the Bible. But tell me more about Caesar.

no, you have seen people reference him, however they are either referencing him, or worshiping him.
tell me a source where some random guy wittnessed a guy with a stick parting the red sea.
or the egyptian hieroglyph depicting raining frogs (youd think that would get a mention).
no, you want to perceice it as fact, so you do.
caesar, he is referenced by thousands of people ALIVE at the time he was.
their are statues all depicting him the same way.
their are coins with his face, found in his territories.
their are references from those who were his enemys.
their is a well documented chronicle of his life.

that is fact. perhaps fact is ridiculous to you.

the parting of the red sea is interesting, since their is a point where for a few hours itis shallow enough to cross.
but I suppose thats not as dramatic

thenumberone: "no, you have seen people reference him, however they are either referencing him, or worshiping him. "

Can you explain this sentence? It doesn't make a lot of sense from how I'm reading it.

Caesar is referenced by thousands of people. so was Jesus. You think that Him travelling all around Israel would not be noticed? as well as His crucifixion? About 500 people saw, felt and communicated with Jesus after the Resurrection alone. How much more would His 3 years of public ministry reach?

Caesar has statues and coins because he was the ruler of the land. Jesus was not favored by the teachers of the law as well as the Romans who ruled Israel at the time, so obviously he doesn't have those things. But this logic doesn't support authenticity either, especially at a time period when statues of Greek and Roman gods were made as well, like Zeus.

Caesar was referenced by his enemies, so were Jesus' enemies. The Pharisees were against Jesus and continue to spread the idea that Jesus was dead even when they lost the body, but they didn't sink so low to the point that they deny Jesus' existence. They just say that He died.

Caesar had a well documented chronicle of his life, so was Jesus. Also, if you look at whitesox's examples, those are authentic non-Christian Roman historians that describe the events of Jesus, particularly Tacitus and Josephus. Most of modern historians take these accounts as historically authentic and these are the same historians that recorded about other Jewish events that are not mentioned in the Bible as well as the life of the Caesars. 

Even if you look at Caesar's own work, we only have about 10 manuscripts of his own work, whereas the New Testament alone contains over 5000 manuscripts.

So with all of this evidence, to say that you don't put your faith in Jesus is your own decision and it is understandable and reasonable that someone would do so, but to say that Jesus does not even exist is foolishly suppressing the truth.

So our belief in Jesus is dependent on fact. It is also dependent on the fact of our human nature as well. That is why fact is not the only thing that can cause people to want to believe in Christianity, but also their own willingness of heart. Those who are stubborn to believe will never believe in Christianity no matter how convincing the facts are. There are people who are intellectually convinced that Jesus is God and real, but their hard hearts stop them from having faith in it, which is why Christianity is dependent on both faith and reason. Without reason, it would be blind faith. Without faith, it would be intellectual agreement with no inner change.

thenumberone : To fix summon

I live my life by logical and proven facts not the Bible because facts can be proven to be true multiple times. I live by logic and reason because no amount of praying or believing in something will get anything accomplished. Also I believe in living by logic alone because there really is no proof that the Biblical events depicted in the Bible really occurred, after all it could be a work of ones imagination and or just a myth or fable passed down from generation to generation. Personally I resent all religion and feel its sole purpose is to give people faith in something and for most to confined  indiscretions or bad deeds they have done.(Also sorry if I offend anyone with this way of thinking that was not my intent I respect anyone no matter of age,race, sex or religion).

kidd mac : So how much of the Bible did you actually researched before deciding that the events in the Bible didn't happen?

play4fun : I do realize/ recognize and acknowledge  some of the events in the Bible could be viewed as true and actually could have occurred but some of it I personally find to be completely false and very unlikely ever to have occurred. (I apologize if I offended anyone with the post I made here both this post and my first post, that wasn't my intent).

I rely on reason. I don't live by the bible. The bible is to restricting for me. I do what makes sense to me. I'm not saying that the bible is wrong, you can believe whatever you want i don't care as long as you don't pressure me. I just don't live by what a book made a long time ago says. But that's just my opinion. 

play4fun :

If I remember right, Tacitus only wrote a few sentences about Christ. But if you have read his histories, I would like to know what he actually wrote.

And as far as for "Caesar had a well documented chronicle of his life, so was Jesus". There are now four canonical gospels which were written years after his death. The ones we read now were canonised several hundred years after his death.

But yes, Jesus ofcource existed but I find comparisons with him to Caesar banal. If you mean Gaius Julius or whatever Caesar there was.

SoL@R :
I know many religious folks that have no choice but to "Trust in God".
With those people in respect?
I have to say that any person of faith that wants to go anywhere would split his decisions in three ways. One by logic, the second by experience, and the third by "gut instinct".
Faith has little sway over deciding what is or is not.
Faith does have sway over the notion that what has happened took place for the best if the decider is of righteous behaviour and practices.
Thanks for the quick "Brain Teaser" anyway.
I miss my faith.
Thanks for reminding me.
I may visit church later this week.
I fear for the modern generation of people.
Way too much of the modern world has replaced "faith and SKILL" with modern tech.
Thank you for reminding me that "A Scared Motha-$%$%$% goes to church." (Quote from "Ice Cube". ...Good man.)
Good Luck To All.
I'm done. Stick a fork in me.
Peace.

kidd mac : to fix summon

play4fun :

What did Tacitus say exactly about the crucifixion of Christ? I have never read the Annals. How Christians were persecuted back then is just common knowledge.