Correctness and Accuracy; Belief and Fact

[hillclimber]

The life of Jesus Christ is probably the most documented one in the history of mankind. There were many witnesses before His Crucifixion, and hundreds after his reserection. The men that walked with him on the earth wrote these books. Your arguements are specious, provocative and silly, kind of like asking proof I typed this note. Stop your silliness.

 

[born again and again]

You could very well be correct regarding the witnesses being present, hill, but you are wrong when it comes to claiming who pysically wrote the books.

For one thing, Peter was illiterate. So tell me who wrote "First Peter."

While it is true that there are volumes upon volumes written about the life of Jesus, no one here can cite a single writing by a scientist or anthropologist who states that he has documented proof that any of the witnesses wrote any of the books of the NT. The earliest biblical documents discovered, date to about 200 A.D. the only exception being perhaps some of Paul's letters. Of course Paul never met Jesus.

 

[born again and again]

Faith is not a bad word. It should not be diminished by feeble attempts to link it to science.

It is faith that allows mankind to accomplish miraculous things.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by born again and again:
It all comes down to belief. Faith = belief. The problem arises when individuals try to turn their beliefs into "facts".

Do you have your own personal definition of "faith?"
Faith does not equal facts, however faith must be based on facts. If it is not it is blind faith. Much of the false religions and cults base their "faith" (blind faith) on things that are non-factual.
For example the Hindu belief that bathing in the Ganges river will make them holy and will wash away their sins is a blind belief. It is blind faith. It has no basis in fact. There is no reason for them to believe that. Religion and science are not mutually exclusive. Especially faith and reason, or faith and intellectual facts.

I have a faith that is based on the historically, scientifically verified facts of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. My faith is based on those events. It is not a blind faith. I know that those events happened. I know that Jesus lives. I know that he rose from the dead. This is one of the most historically verified facts in all of history. My faith is based on facts, not myth.

Here are some basic definitions of faith:

1. Belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting solely and implicitly on his authority and veracity; reliance on testimony.
2. The assent of the mind to the statement or proposition of another, on the ground of the manifest truth of what he utters; firm and earnest belief, on probable evidence of any kind, especially in regard to important moral truth. "Faith, that is, fidelity, -- the fealty of the finite will and understanding to the reason." Coleridge.
3. (Theol.) (a) The belief in the historic truthfulness of the Scripture narrative, and the supernatural origin of its teachings, sometimes called historical and speculative faith. (b) The belief in the facts and truth of the Scriptures, with a practical love of them; especially, that confiding and affectionate belief in the person and work of Christ, which affects the character and life, and makes a man a true Christian, -- called a practical, evangelical, or saving faith. "Without faith it is impossible to please him [God]." Heb. xi. 6. "The faith of the gospel is that emotion of the mind which is called "trust" or "confidence" exercised toward the moral character of God, and particularly of the Savior." Dr. T. Dwight. "Faith is an affectionate, practical confidence in the testimony of God." J. Hawes.
4. That which is believed on any subject, whether in science, politics, or religion; especially (Theol.), a system of religious belief of any kind; as, the Jewish or Mohammedan faith; and especially, the system of truth taught by Christ; as, the Christian faith; also, the creed or belief of a Christian society or church. "Which to believe of her, Must be a faith that reason without miracle Could never plant in me." Shak. "Now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed." Gal. i. 23.
5. Fidelity to one's promises, or allegiance to duty, or to a person honored and beloved; loyalty. "Children in whom is no faith." Deut. xxvii. 20. "Whose failing, while her faith to me remains, I should conceal." Milton.
6. Word or honor pledged; promise given; fidelity; as, he violated his faith. "For you alone I broke me faith with injured Palamon." Dryden.
7. Credibility or truth. [R.] "The faith of the foregoing narrative." Mitford.

http://www.selfknowledge.com/34748.htm

Note the first definition:
the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another,
--That is what faith is. Believing the truth declared by another. In other words, believing the truth declared by God's Word. I have faith in the truth of God's Word.

According to the American Heritage Dictionary, faith is the belief in something despite the lack of evidence to support it.

I don't know where you got this from, but I disagree with it. Faith is always based on facts, that is true faith is. You can have blind faith that the moon is made of green cheese, but that doesn't mean it is.

Christianity is a religion, a faith based belief. No one on this board can identify any scientific publication which states that there is scientific (logical) proof that any of the books of the New Testament were written by eyewitnesses to acts of Jesus. There are no such documents.

Nonsense and hogwash!
Christianity is a faith. "A a system of religious belief of any kind; especially, the system of truth taught by Christ; as, the Christian faith;" (4th definition). I have faith in that system of religious beliefs as it is expressed by God in His revelation to mankind through the Scriptures (the Bible). Again, my faith is not blind. It is based on the facts contained in the Word of God, God's revealed truth. It is truth because Jesus himself is truth. He said: "I am the truth." There is no other truth outside of him.

That does not mean that one cannot believe in the truth of the NT, it just means that the belief is not based on science, it is based on faith, and faith is what religion is all about.

I have more than one degree. I have at least one degree in theology, but I also have a degree in science (biology). I can honestly say that I have never encountered any scientific fact that contradicts the Bible. The Bible is not a book of science, but neither does it contradict that which true science teaches. True belief or faith is based on "scientific" or historical fact. This you cannot get away from. Our faith is not ignorant and blind. We base our faith on knowlegeable facts. It is imperative that you have knowledge in order to have faith.
DHK

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by born again and again:
Has it occurred to anyone in here that it is not logically possible to prove the identity of the author of the Gospel "John", by quoting from "John?"

How does one discern the fake from the original in any area? What about in art? A good artist or collector of art will know how to recognize a genuine Renoir from a fake; a genuine Picasso from a fake, etc. How does he do it? By internal evidence! He is acquainted with the originals.

What about diamonds. How does one know whether a diamond is fake or not. Some artificially ones are almost indistinguishable from the real ones, and yet one well trained in diamonds can tell if it is genuine or not. The do so through internal evidence of the diamond. They know what the real properties of the diamond ought to have.

What about the works of Shakespeare. Suppose you come across a book called "Romeo and Juliette." How do you know that it was Shakespeare that wrote it or not? If you have studied enough of Shakespeare you will know enough of the characteristics of his writings, his style, his idiocyncracies, etc., that you would be able to tell if it was a genuine Shakespeare writing or not.
People often judge the authentic simply by the internal evidence alone. Forgeries are a common thing. We don't always need outsdie evidence to ascertain whether or not the author is "John." There is much internal evidence to tell us who wrote the Gospel of John. It is not illogical at all.

"First, we know that the author was a Jew. His style of writing, the vocabulary, the familiarity with Jewish customs and characteristics, and the background of the OT reflected in this Gospel all strongly support this.
Second, he was a Jew who lived in Palestine (1:28; 2:1,11; 4:46: 11:18,54; 21:1,2). He knew Jerusalem and the temple intimately (5:2; 9:7; 18:1; 19:13;,17,20,41). Also see (2:14-16l 8:20; 10:22).
Third, he was an eyewitness of what he narrates. There are numerous details of places, persons, time, manner (4:46; 5:14; 6:59; 12:21; 13:1; 14:5,8; 18:6; 19:31).
He was an apostle and shows intimate knowledge of the inner circle of the disciples and of the Lord Himself (6:19,60,61; 12:16; 13:22,28; 16:19).
Since the author is precise in naming the other disciples and does not name himself, it is presumed that the unnamed person of 13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7,20 is the Apostle John. Three important passages for further consideration of the eyewitness character of the author are 1:14; 19:35 and 21:24."
--Believr's Bible Commentary, W. MacDonald

This only touches the surface of the internal evidence the Johannine authorship of the Gospel of John.
DHK

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by born again and again:
You could very well be correct regarding the witnesses being present, hill, but you are wrong when it comes to claiming who pysically wrote the books.

You are either going by blind faith to claim otherwise, or
You are a gnostic and have some hidden knowledge that other scholars do not have. You have made some outrageous statements on this board without a shred of evidence to back them up. Quite frankly it is time to shut up or put up. Stop making liberal and atheistic claims without backing them up with some kind of evidence. What you are doing is the equivalent of saying that the moon is made up of green cheese but providing no evidence for it? Where's the proof for your claims.?

For one thing, Peter was illiterate. So tell me who wrote "First Peter."

Outrageous! Incredible! Where do you get this garbage? Before making such an outlandish statement give evidence for such, or you will provoke such responses as I just gave.

I am sure that you are going to refer me to Acts 4:13, so I will do you the favor and quote it for you:
Acts 4:13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.

The phrase "unlearned and ignorant" simply refers that they had not been to the same "seminaries" so to speak as the Pharisees and Saducees, and that is all. It does not mean that they were illiterate. Note John, as well as Peter is mentioned here. John, that simple fisherman, wrote the Gospel of John, the three epistles of First, Second and Third John, and incredibly the Book of Revelation. Quite a feat for someone who is considered illiterate, don't you think. These men were fluent in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Latin. Their Bible, the Old Testament was written in Hebrew. They understood it, though Aramaic was more commonly spoken among them. The Hebrew Scriptures were still used in the synagogues. Greek was the universal language of the day. It was the great contribution of Alexander the Great. Everyone knew Greek, including the Jews. Latin was a language in which all official business was transacted. It was the language of Rome. Anything from Rome, any official document was written in Latin, and the Jews had to know this language as well. Throughout the Gospel of John, he uses Hebraisms and then translates them so that the reader might understand what they mean.
For example:
John 19:17 And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha:

Peter had the same education as John. He was not illiterate. You can see the evidence from his sermon in Acts 2 where he quotes from the prophets: Joel, and David in the Psalms. If he could not read them, how did he know what they said, and so accurately? His epistles are well written and bear his name. There is no reason to doubt that he wrote these epistles. The only people who doubt the Petrine authorship of I and II Peter are unbelievers.

While it is true that there are volumes upon volumes written about the life of Jesus, no one here can cite a single writing by a scientist or anthropologist who states that he has documented proof that any of the witnesses wrote any of the books of the NT.

That is not true. Of course you need to define scientist. There are all kinds of scientists. Theology is the science of the study of God. Bibliology is the science of the study of the Bible. Just as Biology is the science of the study of life. Why would you mention an anthropologist? Anthropology is the science of the study of man. We are not here to study man, but to study God and his word. You have chosen the wrong science. We could study histology and endocrinology too, but would it help?

In lower textual criticism (a study of the texts of the New Testament), we find that there are over 5,000 manuscripts of the New Testament alone. 5,000 plus documents, and you claim that there is no documented proof of witnesses of the authors of the NT. You poor soul. You really do live in a world of unbelief. Each of those documents speak for themselves, both internally and externally.

The earliest biblical documents discovered, date to about 200 A.D. the only exception being perhaps some of Paul's letters. Of course Paul never met Jesus.

Check the Book of Acts. Paul did meet Jesus. He was on the Road to Damascus when he met him. Read 1Cor.15. One of the requirements of an Apostle was that he had to be an eyewitness of the resurrection. Paul includes himself in that list in the 15th chaper of I Corithians.

All of the New Testament was completed between 50 A.D. and 98 A.D., when the Book of Revelation, the last book of the Bible to be written was completed. There were only a few books that were written late (in the 90's) and those were the writings of John, for John was the youngest of all the Apostles and lived the longest.
The rest of the books were written between 50 and 70 A.D.
The two earliest books were the Gospel of Matthew and the Epistle of James, both written about 50 A.D. Christ died about 29 A.D. Both of these men were very close to the Lord. Matthew was an eyewitness of all that Jesus said and did. He was one of the Twelve Apostles, and wrote down what he heard and saw. His is the longest of the four gospels. James was the half brother of Jesus, and thus occupies an important place in compositionn of the canon of Scripture. Jude likewise was a half-brother of Jesus. Do you not think that those that were raised in the very family that Jesus was raised in would be considered to be eye-witnesses to many of the events of Jesus? They if anyone would have a particular interest in the ministry of Jesus. Wouldn't you if Jesus was your brother?

I think you have some homework to do.
DHK

 

[steaver]

Coming from this poster the title "born again and again" has indeed appeared to have been an intentional mockery of Christians who claim to be born again Christians.

The person claims to be born again yet does not accept as absolute Truth the very writings from whence the definition of born again comes from. This alone proves that it is a mockery of Jesus' Word.

There is no point in showing this person their error from Scripture because this one does not believe that "Scripture" carries any weight.

This person is in need of salvation. Relegion does not save. All Christians know that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. This person does not believe there is such a thing as the Word of God that we may hear and believe. All Christians know that they are born into Christ by the Word of God. Anyone who does not believe there is such a thing as The Word of God cannot be born again and therefore cannot be a Christian.

This person's profile declares to be member of the First Evangelical Free Church. This church's #1 statement of faith is...." We believe in the Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments, to be the inspired Word of God, without error in the original writings, the complete revelation of His will for the salvation of men, and the Divine and final authority for all Christian faith and life. "

This person refuses to answer questions which could clarify their said profile.

"Born again and again", arguing against your own church's statement of faith (if it is your church) and against the Christians Word of God will not get you far on these boards. You may have went undetected if it where not for your choice of title, when questioned, brought forth your heresy about the Scriptures. I am afraid your time here will be short unless you begin to deliver up some explanations that could make sense of this all.

No one can be born again without the Word of God. So where is this Word of God through which you became born again and that convinced you that Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God?

God Bless!

 

[DHK]

Born again and again:
Your profile states that you are a member of the First Evangelical Free Church.
Yet your beliefs are entirely different. The Evanglical Free does not question the inspiration of the Scriptures such as you do. Here is a statement of their faith:

First Evangelical Free Church

We believe that the Holy Bible is the inspired Word of God, which reveals to us God's plan of salvation for mankind and is the basis of our faith and the only infallible guide for Christian living (2 Timothy 3:16,17). We believe the entire Bible to be God's written Word, and while we by no intent undervalue or set aside any portion of the Holy Scripture, we believe there are certain fundamental truths, the knowledge of and belief in, we deem necessary for sound doctrine and requisite for Christian fellowship. These fundamentals are set forth in the following Statements of Faith:

* Statement 1: Holy Scripture We believe in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as verbally inspired of God, and inerrant in the original writings, and that they are the supreme and final authority on faith and life. (2 Timothy 3:16,17; 2 Peter 1:20,21)
* Statement 2: Godhead We believe in one God, eternally existing in three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (Matthew 3:16,17; Matthew 28:19)
* Statement 3: Jesus Christ We believe that Jesus Christ was begotten by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary and is true God and true man. (Matthew 1:18-25; John 1:1,14)
* Statement 4: Mankind We believe that man was created in the image of God but fell into sin and is therefore lost and only through regeneration by the Holy Spirit can salvation and spiritual life be obtained. (Genesis 1:26,27; Genesis 3:1-24)
* Statement 5: Jesus Christ's Death We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that all who believe in Him are justified on the grounds of His shed blood. (Isaiah 53; Romans 5:1,9; 1 Corinthians 15:3,4)
* Statement 6: Jesus Christ's Resurrection We believe in the resurrection of the crucified body of our Lord, in His ascension into Heaven, and in His present life there for us, as High Priest and Advocate. (Luke 24:36-48; Acts 1:10,11; Hebrews 4:14-16; Hebrews 9:24; 1 John 2:1)
* Statement 7: Jesus Christ's Return We believe in the personal and imminent return of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. (John 14:3; Acts 1:11; 1 Thessalonians 4:16,17)
* Statement 8: Salvation We believe that all who by faith receive the Lord Jesus Christ are born again by the Holy Spirit and thereby become the children of God. (John 1:12,13; John 5:24)
* Statement 9: Eternity We believe in the bodily resurrection of the just and unjust, the everlasting blessedness of the saved, and the everlasting punishment of the lost. (Matthew 25:46; John 5:28,29)
* Statement 10: Ordinances We believe that the Lord's Supper and water baptism are ordinances to be observed by the Church during this present age. They are, however, not to be regarded as a means of salvation. (Matthew 3:15; Matthew 28:29; 1 Corinthians 11:23-26)
* Statement 11: Holy Spirit We believe that the ministry of the Holy Spirit is to glorify the Lord Jesus Christ, and during this age to convict men, regenerate the believing sinner, indwell, guide, instruct, and empower the believer for godly living and service.

http://www.bible.ca/cr-Evang-First.htm

It is evident that your beliefs do not square with the First Evangelical Free Church's beliefs. So what are you associated with? Are you a wolf in sheep's clothing? This is a "Christian Denomination Forum?" Are you sure that you are a Christian? How do you know? What is a Christian?
DHK

 

[hillclimber]

Originally posted by steaver:
Coming from this poster the title "born again and again" has indeed appeared to have been an intentional mockery of Christians who claim to be born again Christians.

The person claims to be born again yet does not accept as absolute Truth the very writings from whence the definition of born again comes from. This alone proves that it is a mockery of Jesus' Word.

There is no point in showing this person their error from Scripture because this one does not believe that "Scripture" carries any weight.

This person is in need of salvation. Relegion does not save. All Christians know that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. This person does not believe there is such a thing as the Word of God that we may hear and believe. All Christians know that they are born into Christ by the Word of God. Anyone who does not believe there is such a thing as The Word of God cannot be born again and therefore cannot be a Christian.

This person's profile declares to be member of the First Evangelical Free Church. This church's #1 statement of faith is...." We believe in the Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments, to be the inspired Word of God, without error in the original writings, the complete revelation of His will for the salvation of men, and the Divine and final authority for all Christian faith and life. "

This person refuses to answer questions which could clarify their said profile.

"Born again and again", arguing against your own church's statement of faith (if it is your church) and against the Christians Word of God will not get you far on these boards. You may have went undetected if it where not for your choice of title, when questioned, brought forth your heresy about the Scriptures. I am afraid your time here will be short unless you begin to deliver up some explanations that could make sense of this all.

No one can be born again without the Word of God. So where is this Word of God through which you became born again and that convinced you that Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God?

God Bless!

Words of steel steaver. Baa is not done with his search yet.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by born again and again:
This is all religion. And it is all based on belief. Either you believe or you do not believe. It has nothing to do with objective fact, only subjective fact. Thus, when a believer calls something "fact", it really means that that person believes it. The so called "fact" is the "fact" of that person's belief.

Hence the reliance on Exegesis for those that accept the Bible as the Word of God -- INSTEAD of simply relying on tradition and bias

In Christ,

Bob

 

[born again and again]

My beliefs come from my faith in the truth of Jesus, not from pretending who actually wrote the scriptures. It does not go unnoted when my detractors do not address my statements directly. There have been no scientific contradictions offered. Using the dictionary, try to define "faith" without using the word "belief".

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by born again and again:
My beliefs come from my faith in the truth of Jesus, not from pretending who actually wrote the scriptures. It does not go unnoted when my detractors do not address my statements directly. There have been no scientific contradictions offered. Using the dictionary, try to define "faith" without using the word "belief".

You contradict yourself. One cannot communicate intelligently without words. Words have meanings. In one way or another we find those meanings written down in a dictionary. We do not read each other's minds.
You say you have faith in the truth of Jesus.
The only "truth of Jesus" that we have is that truth that has been preserved for us in the 66 books of the Bible, 39 OT; and 27 NT. And if you doubt their authorship, then you naturally doubt the "truth" of the Word. Your very faith is in doubt. The Bible says he that doubteth is damned (condemned). For whatsoever is not of faith is sin. You do not have faith in the truth of Jesus if you do not know what the truth of Jesus is!!

 

[steaver]

Using the dictionary, try to define "faith" without using the word "belief".

Faith in Jesus Christ does not come from a dictionary. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. It does not matter whether or not you error as to who actually wrote down the words of God, but it does matter that you know what the Word of God is. Now where is the Word of God that you have heard and believed?

My beliefs come from my faith in the truth of Jesus, not from pretending who actually wrote the scriptures.

Where did you find the Truth of Jesus? You said previously that know one knows what Jesus said. How is it you can have faith in something that cannot be known?

God Bless!

 

[born again and again]

Some truths are so obvious . . .they virtually speak for themselves. To believe in the teachings of Jesus, it is not necessary to know who wrote the books of the NT.

 

[born again and again]

It is certainly true, and thanks to steaver for pointing it out, that faith itself does not come from a dictionary. But the definition does.

It is extremely interesting that with all the postings on this topic, no one has cited a reference to any scientific proof as to who wrote the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, First Peter, etc.

The fact that a writing is entitled "John", does not prove who actually wrote it. And where again is the evidence that the John of Jesus was not illiterate? It does not mean that he couldn't speak Hebrew, Latin or any other language; it merely refers to the fact that he could not write them; not so unusual for the times; most people in that era could not write and there is no indication in the NT that Jesus selected followers based on whether or not they knew how to write.

 

[born again and again]

I've heard some other believers say that the Holy Spirit caused various individuals to write the books and that therefore they were divinely inspired.

 

[born again and again]

Actually, DHK, the dictionary defines theology as:

1. The study of the nature of God and religious truth; rational inquiry into religious questions.

2. A system or school of opinions concerning God and religious questions, i.e. Protestant theology: Jewish theology.

3. A course of specialized religious study.

So, DHK, in as much as I have made a rational inquiry into the source of the writings contained in the NT, where is the scientific proof as to wrote the books?

 

[born again and again]

Some say tht I have blind faith. Well so be it.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by born again and again:
Actually, DHK, the dictionary defines theology as:

1. The study of the nature of God and religious truth; rational inquiry into religious questions.

2. A system or school of opinions concerning God and religious questions, i.e. Protestant theology: Jewish theology.

3. A course of specialized religious study.

So, DHK, in as much as I have made a rational inquiry into the source of the writings contained in the NT, where is the scientific proof as to wrote the books?

I listed the definitions of faith for you. You are very selective in the definitions that you chose. That doesn't help your case.
Look in any conservative NT Survey book if your are truly interested in finding out evidence as to the authorship of the New Testament books. At this point I don't believe you have any genuine interest. A word to the wise. Trolling is not permitted on BB.
DHK

 

[born again and again]

In response to DHK's last remarks:

Sorry if you feel that the dictionary is an inadequate source for definitions of words used in our language. If you feel that I am being selective, go ahead and reference a different english dictionary for a different definition of theology. Although you may have your own definitions, the dictionary is an authoritative source.

And since you brought up the subject of trolling, how would you characterize this (quoting DHK): "Your very faith is in doubt. . . . For whatsoever is not of faith is sin."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you are attempting to provoke me by saying words to the effect that, not only do I not have faith, but that my beliefs constitute sin.

You say this, despite the fact that this board is littered with my statements as to my having faith. Sounds like a direct contradiciton of my statements of my own beliefs and a pretty good example of provocation, e.g. "trolling." Thanks for the ". . .word to the wise."