Correctness and Accuracy; Belief and Fact

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.

 

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:

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.

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.

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.

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

 

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.

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

 

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.?

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.

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.

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

 

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!

 

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:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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!!

 

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?

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!

 

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