NT Writers

[POI]

For the context of this discussion, let's roll with the definition of faith to mean -- "to trust in, or to apply hope in anyways, despite inference(s) to the contrary. " Since belief does not seem to be a choice, as I cannot simply chose to believe in fairies without proper demonstration, the term faith looks to be the work-around.

Further, many will also argue faith in Jesus is necessary, because all humans fall short. But if this is THE case, then 'morals' also look to become superfluous and/or irrelevant. Which then looks to be contradictory and/or illogical, as the NT expresses the need to follow a certain 'moral' code....

For debate: Were the NT writer(s) savvy enough to recognize that many would read this collection of writings and not believe -- (due to contradiction and/or illogic)? Hence, the workaround term faith was implemented?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #170]

'The Bible' is clearly telling the later reader that the ones who apply (faith > direct evidence) are preferred.

The first thing I will point out here is the fact that the Bible is not clearly telling us anything at all. Rather, it is the author who is contained in the Bible, who is telling the intended audience at the time. This author could not have possibly known that millions, upon millions, maybe even billions would read what he had to say. Keep in mind, the author of the letters to Theophilus tells Theophilus, "many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us". If the author acknowledges that many had authored accounts, then why in the world would this author feel the need to author another? One of the answers to this would be the fact that copies would be extremely hard to come by at that time, and so it is not like the author could simply send a copy of one of these other reports to Theophilus. Therefore, the author tells Theophilus that he is writing out an account for him, in order for Theophilus "to know the exact truth". This is exactly the way in which it is presented, in that the author seems to have one audience in mind, with no concern as to anyone else ever reading what he had to say. You really need to keep in mind that the authors could not have imagined many other folks could have read what they had to write other than the intended audience at the time.

I have even had well-meaning and well-educated ones here, in this forum, argue that the reason (I) have not had a direct "Jesus experience", even though I used to pray for one, is because then I would no longer be able to apply faith; and the Bible wants you to have faith.

Yeah, I know all about those "well-meaning Christians" who do far more damage than any sort of good. The author never asked their audience to believe the resurrection upon faith. When Paul talks about faith, he is talking about having faith alone, in God alone, as far as salvation goes. In other words, your faith needs to be in the works of God as far as salvation, and not a faith in your own ability to earn salvation. Paul is not asking folks to employ faith in the belief in the resurrection, which is exactly why he told the Corinthians that Jesus had appeared to a group of 500 folks, "most who are still alive" and imploring the Corinthians to investigate the evidence for themselves. I employ no faith at all in knowing that there are very good reasons to believe the resurrection. I employ no faith at all in knowing that there is no way one can sit down in order to examine what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be true, as opposed to what all would have to be involved for the claims to be false and come away believing there are easy answers. I know this is not possible, not because I have faith, but rather because it is a fact. I mean, I do not know, but maybe with some of the other religions, there may be some sort of easy answer. What I do know is, there are no easy answers as far as Christianity is concerned, and one of the things which will not work is to be under the impression that these folks made the story of the resurrection up. It just will not explain all the facts and evidence we can know. So then, we are off to the next possible explanation, and we will again discover that there is no known explanation of the facts and evidence we can know which would not include the extraordinary.

So, you see, I do not have faith that there are good reasons to believe the resurrection, rather I know this to be the case. I do not have faith that there is no known explanation of the facts and evidence we have which would not include the extraordinary, but this is something I know. I do not need faith in order to believe something for which there are facts, evidence, and reasons to weigh. What I would need faith in order to believe is something like the resurrection atoned for my sin. Because you see, I cannot touch, weigh, analyze, examine, or feel forgiveness. Rather, forgiveness must be accepted by faith. I have the facts and evidence for the rest.

So again, you may argue that the 'faith' in which is being propped up is not 'faith' in Jesus's mere existence, but instead only applying faith that he will deliver his promise. But this is certainly not what MANY think in the well-meaning and well-educated Christian community.

You know, I get in trouble sometimes for what I say here, but I really do not know how to say it better. I am not attempting to be mean, nor am I attempting to embarrass anyone. I am simply trying to get a point across.

I understand what you mean by "well-meaning", I do not understand what you mean by "well-educated". What I do know is, we have folks like yourself on this site, who were clearly exposed to some reckless theology, and it should not be shocking at all that we would have "well-meaning" Christians, and maybe even "well-educated" Christians, who have been exposed to the same type of reckless theology, who do far more damage than good. I am not shocked in the least.

Again, at the risk of getting myself in trouble, we have one right here on this thread who freely tells us he was a "drunk in the holy ghost Christian on 3 continents for decades". Where in the world does any of the authors contained in the NT tell us that we should be "drunk in the holy ghost"? This is extremely reckless theology, and he freely tells us he carried on this way for decades. This should tell you that this "well-meaning" maybe even "well-educated" Christian was attempting to convert folks by applying this obvious reckless theology. Is it any wonder at all to you that he has now rejected Christianity? The only thing which is shocking is the fact that it took decades. The next question should be, did he really reject Christianity? Or did he reject the reckless theology he was exposed to and then went on to "throw the baby out with the bath water"? With what I have just described, is it any shock at all to you that you may have what you call "well-meaning" and or "well-educated" Christians who give you such advice? It is not shocking to me in the least.

Allow me to share with you this. When I began to study the Christian claims, only because I knew my children would be exposed to it, after over 2 years of studying the facts and evidence involved, I became convinced of the claims, but I rejected a whole bunch of what I was taught as a child, to the point I could not attend Church with my mom, dad, and many close friends. The point is, I was exposed to some bad theology (not near as bad as being drunk in the holy ghost) but I was able to separate what I had been exposed to from what I was reading. I can go on to tell you that I fully know it to be a fact that most Christians I know, really have no idea what they believe, nor why they believe it, which again is the reason I am not shocked at all concerning Christians who are "well-meaning" and maybe even "well-educated" telling you these sorts of things. It is expected.

As far as the other thread, and the video, I have watched the video, but I really do not enjoy responding to videos because it is very time consuming. Maybe I can get to it later, but the question I will ask at this point is, is it easier to believe that the author sat down to write out an account to Theophilus in order for Theophilus to know the exact truth? Or is it easier to believe that others sat down in order to fabricate not one, but two long and detailed letters and address these letters to some guy by the name of Theophilus? I can tell you this, I do not have to jump through any sort of mental hoops to believe the former. How many mental hoops would one have to jump through in order to believe the latter?

[POI]

The first thing I will point out here is the fact that the Bible is not clearly telling us anything at all.

It most certainly is. Jesus tells Thomas that he prefers the ones who believe without seeing. Verse 29 is a clear example to demonstrate that a) faith is to be preferred (over and above) b) collecting or receiving hard evidence which would convince you. Jesus's position is said to be a) > b).

Rather, it is the author who is contained in the Bible, who is telling the intended audience at the time. This author could not have possibly known that millions, upon millions, maybe even billions would read what he had to say.

Even IF this were true, the message remains. Jesus is telling Thomas that more-so are revered ones who apply (faith > evidence). This would mean that a "postmortem Jesus" himself prefers the ones who chose to follow by way of "faith" over and above instead being convinced by evidence.

Keep in mind, the author of the letters to Theophilus tells Theophilus,

I have told you repeatedly now, that 'Luke" is likely a fraud, based upon the collected facts and evidence. Referencing anything from "Luke" and "Acts" is to logically be discarded and ignored. I have respectfully attempted to get you to engage an entire isolated topic, for which I created in your honor. --> viewtopic.php?t=41934&start=90

Yeah, I know all about those "well-meaning Christians" who do far more damage than any sort of good.

Maybe this is you?

The author never asked their audience to believe the resurrection upon faith.

False: John 20:29.

Rather, forgiveness must be accepted by faith.

I've already "steelmaned" your position. Why do you keep repeating it? Paul's version is not to apply faith that he exists, but instead to only apply faith in what a known "postmortem Jesus" will do.

I have the facts and evidence for the rest.

I'm afraid this statement means very little. Let's explore the other thread....

You know, I get in trouble sometimes for what I say here, but I really do not know how to say it better. I am not attempting to be mean, nor am I attempting to embarrass anyone. I am simply trying to get a point across.

This is why I avoid discussing religion and politics at the dinner table, and instead converse/exchange with anonymous interlocutors here. I have thick skin, and I would imagine all other here do as well. By all means, let it rip.

I understand what you mean by "well-meaning", I do not understand what you mean by "well-educated".

I'll give you a prime example. I have simultaneously debated two hermeneutic scholars. One held to a young earth position and the other held to an old earth, while I already KNOW they have both obviously read Genesis. By "well-educated", I mean higher learning and/or extensive study to all the claims. Based upon your testimony, I have faith that you too fit in as 'well-educated'. Am I correct here?

What I do know is, we have folks like yourself on this site, who were clearly exposed to some reckless theology,

LOL! I deem it all as "reckless theology". This would include your current position. Hence, the reason you are required to apply Christian apologetics to make it all "make sense" both logically and morally, rather than to reject the premise.

Again, at the risk of getting myself in trouble, we have one right here on this thread who freely tells us he was a "drunk in the holy ghost Christian on 3 continents for decades". Where in the world does any of the authors contained in the NT tell us that we should be "drunk in the holy ghost"? This is extremely reckless theology, and he freely tells us he carried on this way for decades. This should tell you that this "well-meaning" maybe even "well-educated" Christian was attempting to convert folks by applying this obvious reckless theology. Is it any wonder at all to you that he has now rejected Christianity?

Maybe if this fellow instead placed credence upon a document which is likely fraudulent, (i.e.) 'Luke', he would be on a better track back to "faith"?

The only thing which is shocking is the fact that it took decades.

Many people are completely wrong in their conclusion(s), sometimes for the rest of their lives. Maybe this includes you, regarding the belief in a "postmortem Jesus" claim?

The next question should be, did he really reject Christianity? Or did he reject the reckless theology he was exposed to and then went on to "throw the baby out with the bath water"?

Since I do not know who you are speaking about, I could not say? If you are speaking about me, I finally read the Bible for myself and after extensive study, found it does not align with either my own reason or morals. Thus, to be consistent with myself, I reject it. Does this mean I reject claims to generic deism, not necessarily? I instead confidently conclude that Christianity is one of MANY 'god claims' for which I can now scratch off of the list of possibilities, as it pertains to claims of general theism.

With what I have just described, is it any shock at all to you that you may have what you call "well-meaning" and or "well-educated" Christians who give you such advice? It is not shocking to me in the least.

(Faith and fear) are presented in the "NT." Hence, it is quite logical for one to tell me to apply faith without instead only being convinced if I receive sufficient evidence. We can look no further than John 20:29 alone...

Allow me to share with you this. When I began to study the Christian claims, only because I knew my children would be exposed to it,

I'm sure your children get exposed to all sorts of wild 'god' claims. Did you study all those too? Do you really think Christianity is the only game in town? Or is it instead because you know it is the most common, based upon geography?

after over 2 years of studying the facts and evidence involved, I became convinced of the claims,

Was this (before or after) you accepted 'Luke' and 'Acts' as a legitimate/credible source?

but I rejected a whole bunch of what I was taught as a child, to the point I could not attend Church with my mom, dad, and many close friends.

Being there exists countless denominations, while all reference the same collection of books, I'm sure you could eventually find one(s) which suite your fancy.

The point is, I was exposed to some bad theology

Accepting 'Luke' and 'Acts' as legit is not 'bad theology'?

As far as the other thread, and the video, I have watched the video, but I really do not enjoy responding to videos because it is very time consuming. Maybe I can get to it later, but the question I will ask at this point is, is it easier to believe that the author sat down to write out an account to Theophilus in order for Theophilus to know the exact truth? Or is it easier to believe that others sat down in order to fabricate not one, but two long and detailed letters and address these letters to some guy by the name of Theophilus? I can tell you this, I do not have to jump through any sort of mental hoops to believe the former. How many mental hoops would one have to jump through in order to believe the latter?

Luke is likely the "alternative facts" Gospel. When reading Mark vs. Luke, they are not logically compatible to me.

In the video, the fella on the left represents the skeptic who asks questions about things which do not appear to jive when read against Mark's claim(s). The fella on the right represents a necessary and needed Christian apologist to rationalize all introduced and/or observed questions or criticisms to these apparent conflicts. Hence, the dialogue between the two represents the debate between the skeptic vs. a faith-based believer. The one on the left is coming across all the questionable passages presented in Luke and questioning the veracity of them as they are compared to Mark, while the one on the right is instead applying the necessary apologetics to make it all 'fit'

The video's premise is also as follows:

1. To make Jesus look better in Luke.
2. To make the Romans look better in Luke.
3. Add even more miracle claims in Luke.
4. To apply some damage control against Mark.
5. To demonstrate that Luke's source is Mark and Q - (copying some stuff and elaborating other stuff).

I cordially invite you to engage that thread anywhere. Thank you kindly!

[Clownboat]

The next question should be, did he really reject Christianity? Or did he reject the reckless theology he was exposed to and then went on to "throw the baby out with the bath water"?

Since I do not know who you are speaking about, I could not say?

He is referring to me.
I was born again, drunk in the Holy Ghost, street evangelist, missionary (3 countries) for nearly 2 decades.

If you are speaking about me, I finally read the Bible for myself and after extensive study, found it does not align with either my own reason or morals. Thus, to be consistent with myself, I reject it.

What I stated above is true and I also went to Christian schooling K-12 while attending church 6 times (5 days due to twice on Sundays) a week. This doesn't include chapel services every Monday at school.
Like you, it was a reading of the book itself that started my questioning. Ironic, no?
I tried my best to keep my beliefs. I even at one time allowed for evolution to be true and believed that it was just the way that God got to human and the animals we now see.

I instead confidently conclude that Christianity is one of MANY 'god claims' for which I can now scratch off of the list of possibilities, as it pertains to claims of general theism.

I don't quite take it this far. I have concluded that the claimed aspects of this god concept cannot be true as portrayed in the Bible. The claims of being all powerful, all knowing and being a god of love for example seem to contradict, but perhaps the ineffective punishing God portrayed in the Bible is real to some degree.

The ineffective punishing God:
Adam and Eve created by an all powerful all knowing and loving God. They sin, so he punishes them by kicking them out, by causing pain in childbirth for all women and also punishing Satan to crawl on his belly. Now what did that accomplish? This evil Satan continued to wreck havoc on this God's creation and women continued to disobey this God the rest of the way through the Bible.
This same God commanded men not to kill and then commands them to stone people to death for all manner of things.
This same God floods the entire planet, killing the animals too, just to try to rid the world of sinners. Another violent and ignorant attempt at trying to solve a problem. Humans continued to sin anyway.
This same God then sends his own son to earth to try to fix the mess, but even that failed miserably.
(There are more examples of ineffective punishments. I just wanted to give a brief example of what I meant).

[AquinasForGod]

I am not going to roll with that definition of faith.

Okay, let's explore then....

My position is that the Bible pushed up (faith and fear) to gain new converts, because the NT writers were aware that most aren't going to receive hard evidence - like the said characters in the Bible are said to have had. Case/point, 'doubting Thomas' was told that more blessed are the ones who believe without such evidence. The Bible also pushed up faith and fear here, and beyond --- (Mark 16:15-16, Revelation 21;8, Matthew 25:46, Hebrews 11:1-6, 2 Corinthians 5:7, Proverbs 3:5-6, John 3:16, etc).

I look forward to your response....

There really isn't anything to respond to here. I still reject your definition of faith.

[POI]

I am not going to roll with that definition of faith.

Okay, let's explore then....

My position is that the Bible pushed up (faith and fear) to gain new converts, because the NT writers were aware that most aren't going to receive hard evidence - like the said characters in the Bible are said to have had. Case/point, 'doubting Thomas' was told that more blessed are the ones who believe without such evidence. The Bible also pushed up faith and fear here, and beyond --- (Mark 16:15-16, Revelation 21;8, Matthew 25:46, Hebrews 11:1-6, 2 Corinthians 5:7, Proverbs 3:5-6, John 3:16, etc).

I look forward to your response....

There really isn't anything to respond to here. I still reject your definition of faith.

Then you reject parts of the book in which you deem authoritative: (i.e.) Mark 16:15-16, Revelation 21;8, Matthew 25:46, Hebrews 11:1-6, 2 Corinthians 5:7, Proverbs 3:5-6, John 3:16, etc..

[AquinasForGod]

I am not going to roll with that definition of faith.

Okay, let's explore then....

My position is that the Bible pushed up (faith and fear) to gain new converts, because the NT writers were aware that most aren't going to receive hard evidence - like the said characters in the Bible are said to have had. Case/point, 'doubting Thomas' was told that more blessed are the ones who believe without such evidence. The Bible also pushed up faith and fear here, and beyond --- (Mark 16:15-16, Revelation 21;8, Matthew 25:46, Hebrews 11:1-6, 2 Corinthians 5:7, Proverbs 3:5-6, John 3:16, etc).

I look forward to your response....

There really isn't anything to respond to here. I still reject your definition of faith.

Then you reject parts of the book in which you deem authoritative: (i.e.) Mark 16:15-16, Revelation 21;8, Matthew 25:46, Hebrews 11:1-6, 2 Corinthians 5:7, Proverbs 3:5-6, John 3:16, etc..

No, it means I do not take your interpretations seriously.

[POI]

I am not going to roll with that definition of faith.

Okay, let's explore then....

My position is that the Bible pushed up (faith and fear) to gain new converts, because the NT writers were aware that most aren't going to receive hard evidence - like the said characters in the Bible are said to have had. Case/point, 'doubting Thomas' was told that more blessed are the ones who believe without such evidence. The Bible also pushed up faith and fear here, and beyond --- (Mark 16:15-16, Revelation 21;8, Matthew 25:46, Hebrews 11:1-6, 2 Corinthians 5:7, Proverbs 3:5-6, John 3:16, etc).

I look forward to your response....

There really isn't anything to respond to here. I still reject your definition of faith.

Then you reject parts of the book in which you deem authoritative: (i.e.) Mark 16:15-16, Revelation 21;8, Matthew 25:46, Hebrews 11:1-6, 2 Corinthians 5:7, Proverbs 3:5-6, John 3:16, etc..

No, it means I do not take your interpretations seriously.

Nu-huh is not a very effective debate response. Just say'n....

[BrotherBerry]

For the context of this discussion, let's roll with the definition of faith to mean -- "to trust in, or to apply hope in anyways, despite inference(s) to the contrary. " Since belief does not seem to be a choice, as I cannot simply chose to believe in fairies without proper demonstration, the term faith looks to be the work-around.

Further, many will also argue faith in Jesus is necessary, because all humans fall short. But if this is THE case, then 'morals' also look to become superfluous and/or irrelevant. Which then looks to be contradictory and/or illogical, as the NT expresses the need to follow a certain 'moral' code....

For debate: Were the NT writer(s) savvy enough to recognize that many would read this collection of writings and not believe -- (due to contradiction and/or illogic)? Hence, the workaround term faith was implemented?

Yes, they knew some people would not use logic and not believe the truth, Romans 10:16. If somebody tells you they think a contradiction is in the Bible they are confused and deceived by Satan, 2 Corinthians 4:4.

To learn more go to www.Gotquestions.org

[POI]

For the context of this discussion, let's roll with the definition of faith to mean -- "to trust in, or to apply hope in anyways, despite inference(s) to the contrary. " Since belief does not seem to be a choice, as I cannot simply chose to believe in fairies without proper demonstration, the term faith looks to be the work-around.

Further, many will also argue faith in Jesus is necessary, because all humans fall short. But if this is THE case, then 'morals' also look to become superfluous and/or irrelevant. Which then looks to be contradictory and/or illogical, as the NT expresses the need to follow a certain 'moral' code....

For debate: Were the NT writer(s) savvy enough to recognize that many would read this collection of writings and not believe -- (due to contradiction and/or illogic)? Hence, the workaround term faith was implemented?

Yes, they knew some people would not use logic and not believe the truth, Romans 10:16. If somebody tells you they think a contradiction is in the Bible they are confused and deceived by Satan, 2 Corinthians 4:4.

To learn more go to www.Gotquestions.org

Ah, so basically cutting to the chase, if you find any fault in the Bible, you are either dumb and/or wicked? If so, the follow up question then becomes, why not just blindly believe any preferred holy book of choice?

[Clownboat]

Yes, they knew some people would not use logic and not believe the truth, Romans 10:16.

Why do you think that some people will claim to have the truth when they cannot demonstrate that what they believe is in fact the truth?
For example, why are you spreading lies when it comes to a Muslim point of view?

If somebody tells you they think a contradiction is in the Bible they are confused and deceived by Satan, 2 Corinthians 4:4.

What a silly and slanderous thing to say. I note your weak attempt to poison the well, and reject if for being weak and unevidenced.
What pride you display though. Watch out for that fall.