Is faith a reliable method for determining truth?

[bluegreenearth]

For example:

Hebrews 11:3

3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

There are numerous verses following the one above that equally proclaim, "By faith," something is understood or known to be true. Therefore, in this context, "faith" is being encouraged for use as an epistemology. How does "faith" function to reliably distinguish true claims from false claims or does it fail in that regard? What would demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Christian community that "faith" is not a reliable tool for discovering what is true or false?

[Difflugia]

We also have the two letters addressed to, Theophilus, and in the second letter, the author begins to use the words, "we", and "us" when describing the travels of Paul, as if he is there to actually witness the events he records. This my friend, is "verifiable evidence" that the author of this letter would have been alive at the time of Jesus. It is also 'verifiable evidence" that this author would have known the original Apostles, along with the claims they were making first hand. This means, this would be "verifiable evidence" that this author could very well have "investigated everything carefully from the beginning" as he assures Theophilus that he had.

I recommend reading "By Land and By Sea: The We-Passages and Ancient Sea Voyages," an essay by Vernon K. Robbins. It's downloadable as a PDF from the author's faculty page at Emory.

The concluding paragraph reads:

If the author felt such a close relation to all of the events he wrote about, why did he not use first person plural all the way through? Why did he use it only in the we-sections? He did not use first person plural only in the we-sections. He used it in the two settings where it is eminently appropriate if the author construes his work in the genre of historical biography in the Hellenistic milieu toward the end of the first century A.D. These two settings are prefaces and sea voyages.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 284 by Danmark]

First you say it has nothing to do with credibility, then you give as your first example that it has EVERYTHING to do with credibility. When you assess facts and evidence, credibility is of supreme importance; your own example demonstrates why.

What my examples demonstrates is that my cousin had no credibility, and yet this had nothing whatsoever to do with what he had reported to me being true, or false. In other words, I added his credibility into the equation, as one of the reasons I should discount what he had reported, only to discover he had reported the exact truth.

“...for they think that they will be heard for their many words."
Your cousin is, you say, a liar. End of story. He should not be believed because he is a liar. Yet you claim the fact he is a liar is not important. I find this as curious as the notion that 'many words' are offered as a substitute for logic.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 285 by Realworldjack]

However, if you would like to compare the two, then from what I understand, Smith attempted to add witnesses to the so called, "golden tablets", and then one, by one, some of these witnesses began to recant, with some even leaving the Church.

At least Joseph Smith could present actual signatures of bona-fide witnesses. You have nothing but unsupported claims.

You can continue saying these sort of things, but your facts do not add up. We have at least 5 different claims of the same resurrection, which means they would all support each other.

Five? You have none. You can't quote a single witness by name, a witness we can authenticate. Can you even prove any of these 'witnesses' ever even lived? Do any of them even have a last name? Are any of them more credible than your cousin who you call a 'liar?'

[Danmark]

This is SO, SO, COMICAL! Do you all really think this is any sort of argument?

One thing we know, this offering of yours is not an argument.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 301 by Danmark]

I'm beginning to think that Paul was the Joseph Smith of his day.

[marco]

Now then, what evidence to we have as far as history is concerned, of these same sort of problems with what was recorded in these personal letters, written to audiences at the time?

Do you suppose that had there been any negatives they would have survived the Church spring cleaning? We killed heretics in the past.

We have stories of a resurrection. We have a choice of whether to believe or not. We have stories of alien abductions. We have a choice of whether to believe or not. You are curiously impressed by the fact that claimants wrote to each other with total acceptance of their stories. That's because they believed them. They were wrong.


Faith steps in where rational deduction goes home disgusted. Faith certainly moves people, if not mountains, and it sometimes moves them to kill other people. I don't think faith should ever gain victory over reason. And in the debate about Christ rising, reason, not faith, should win.

[Danmark]

As far as, "the establishment of a new religion with himself as the head of it"? Well, after reading the above, it certainly did not seem to pay off. We can also throw in the fact that we have pretty strong evidence that Paul was indeed imprisoned late in his life, for proclaiming these things, and we also have certain evidence that this imprisonment lasted some 2 years. He had a nice life, "with himself as the head"?

Many have been imprisoned, all of them convicted as criminals. This hardly qualifies them as reliable witnesses.
Joseph Smith too was imprisoned. Does this mean his faith was justified?
People have died for false beliefs as well as those we presume are true.

[marco]

Joseph Smith too was imprisoned. Does this mean his faith was justified?
People have died for false beliefs as well as those we presume are true.

Yes it is amazing that anyone can say:

Paul got hit on the head
So Jesus rose from the dead.

Martyrs to faith are strange people who court death for a dream or a nightmare. One who was burned in St. Andrews on the site of one of the university colleges had this said about him:
"The reek (smoke) of Master Patrick Hamilton has infected as many as it blew upon."

For every martyr there are thousands of admirers. Of course Peter had to show off in his martyrdom and get crucified upside down. I always wondered how this would work, death wise. He's maybe still alive.

Faith moveth mountains.

[polonius]

For example:

Hebrews 11:3

3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

There are numerous verses following the one above that equally proclaim, "By faith," something is understood or known to be true. Therefore, in this context, "faith" is being encouraged for use as an epistemology. How does "faith" function to reliably distinguish true claims from false claims or does it fail in that regard? What would demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Christian community that "faith" is not a reliable tool for discovering what is true or false?

RESPONSE: By Faith in Matthew we believe that Jesus was born during the reign of King Herod who died in 4 BC.
By Faith in Luke we believe that Jesus was born during the 6 AD Census of Judea.
But this would mean that there were two different Jesus'


Or that putting "faith" in the Bible sometimes yields error.

[Realworldjack]

As far as, "the establishment of a new religion with himself as the head of it"? Well, after reading the above, it certainly did not seem to pay off. We can also throw in the fact that we have pretty strong evidence that Paul was indeed imprisoned late in his life, for proclaiming these things, and we also have certain evidence that this imprisonment lasted some 2 years. He had a nice life, "with himself as the head"?

Many have been imprisoned, all of them convicted as criminals. This hardly qualifies them as reliable witnesses.
Joseph Smith too was imprisoned. Does this mean his faith was justified?
People have died for false beliefs as well as those we presume are true.

I understand that I am responding out of turn here, and I will get back in line, but I could not help but go ahead and respond to this post, in order to demonstrate the complete blunder that it is, because what you all are saying here is completely, and utterly, irrelevant.

Because you see, I did not refer to the imprisonment of Paul, in order to demonstrate this "would qualify him as a reliable witness". Nor was it to demonstrate, "his faith was justified", and it also had nothing to do with why folks may die for what they believe.

Rather, let us recall, that it was you who, made this statement as if it were a fact,

His (Paul's) claim is fantastic AND Paul has an axe to grind, the establishment of a new religion with himself as the head of it.

Therefore, I went on to point out some of the hardships Paul faced, which would have included imprisonment, in order to demonstrate, if this was indeed Paul's goal, it did not work out so well for him, seeing as how being the head of this "new religion" caused him more hardships, if anything? In fact, let us read what Paul seems to have gained from "becoming the head of this new religion", from his own pen.

in far more labors, in far more imprisonments, beaten times without number, often in danger of death. Five times I received from the Jews thirty-nine lashes. Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, a night and a day I have spent in the deep. I have been on frequent journeys, in dangers from rivers, dangers from robbers, dangers from my countrymen, dangers from the Gentiles, dangers in the city, dangers in the wilderness, dangers on the sea, dangers among false brethren; I have been in labor and hardship, through many sleepless nights, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure. Apart from such external things, there is the daily pressure on me of concern for all the churches.

So then, as you can see, the whole point is, you make it sound as if Paul was proclaiming these things, for the glamour that would be involved, while the evidence we have would suggest, there would be no glamour to be had?

You then go on to make this "straw man" argument either in an attempt to divert the conversation, or you are simply having trouble keeping up with the conversation? So allow me to get you back on track.

At this point, it is not that you have to argue that these hardships would not be any sort of sign which would point to the validity of what Paul would have to say, because this argument was never made. Rather, it is your duty at this point, to demonstrate that your assertion would be correct which was, "Paul has an axe to grind, the establishment of a new religion with himself as the head of it", in the face of all the facts, and evidence which would suggest that the things Paul was proclaiming continued to cause him, much hardship.

In other words, it was you who seemed to be suggesting that Paul was in it for himself, and what he had to gain. My question is, what did he have to gain, along with, what did he actually get out of all of it in the end?

Please attempt to stay on task. It will save us a lot of time, and space. Thanks!