born again and again
New Member
Just so you are very clear, I am not asking anything from DHK. It is not mandatory that he provide anything to add scientific credibility to any of his positions. It is his choice to not do so.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Correctness and Accuracy; Belief and Fact
- Thread starter born again and again
- Start date
I clearly gave you a definition of faith, which (as I suspected) you would not accept. I gave it to you from the highest possible authority--God himself. But then I see that you don't accept God's Word as an authority, only man's opinion. Shame, isn't it?
You wanted an authoritative source to be cited.
I quoted to you the Scriptures as an authoritative source.
You rejected it.
Sad.
DHK
born again and again
New Member
Can anyone explain which of the above listed dictionary definitions of "faith" is used out of context in the above posting?
It is also your choice not to define "the scientific" evidence that you demand. Do you still belong to the "Flat Earth Society?" What kind of science are you into? Again, do you actually know what science is? If not, why are you asking for scientific evidence when you can't explain what science is. Why are you asking me for something that you are unable to define. You need to be reasonable.
DHK
born again and again
New Member
You are clearly one of the more furtunate ones, someone to whom God speaks directly.
born again and again
New Member
DHK claims that he has several degrees, one in biology. Surely he does not need me to explain what is meant by "scientific evidence."
born again and again
New Member
And of course God may have a better definition of the word faith. The only problem is that, on this forum we all speak english and the english dictionary is the source for the definition of words.
born again and again
New Member
"I gave it to you from the highest possible authority--God himself." DHK
Hallelujah!
Hallelujah!
born again and again
New Member
"Do you still belong to the "Flat Earth Society?" DHK
Trolling? Nah, of course not.
Trolling? Nah, of course not.
born again and again
New Member
For those who are interested, using one of your (DHK's) cited sources for the definition of faith (www.yourdictionary.com), the number 1 definition listed is:
1. "Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea or thing."
2. "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."
The number 3 definition at your cited source is:
3. "Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping the faith with ones supporters."
The number 4 definition from your cited source is:
4. "often faith Christianity. The theoretical virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will."
The number 5 definition from your cited source is:
5. "The body of a dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith."
The number 6 definition from your cited source is:
6. "A set of principles or beliefs."
It should be further noted that the single (only one of these) definition you referenced uses the word "belief" to define "faith."
My challenge to you was to cite an authoritative source for the definition of the word "faith" which does not use the word "belief" to define faith. This you have clearly not done.
Would someone please explain how the above definitions (cited from DHK's source), are taken out of context or not accurate. And would someone pleas explain how they do not clearly demonstrate that one cannot define "faith" without using "belief."
1. "Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea or thing."
2. "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."
The number 3 definition at your cited source is:
3. "Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping the faith with ones supporters."
The number 4 definition from your cited source is:
4. "often faith Christianity. The theoretical virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will."
The number 5 definition from your cited source is:
5. "The body of a dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith."
The number 6 definition from your cited source is:
6. "A set of principles or beliefs."
It should be further noted that the single (only one of these) definition you referenced uses the word "belief" to define "faith."
My challenge to you was to cite an authoritative source for the definition of the word "faith" which does not use the word "belief" to define faith. This you have clearly not done.
Would someone please explain how the above definitions (cited from DHK's source), are taken out of context or not accurate. And would someone pleas explain how they do not clearly demonstrate that one cannot define "faith" without using "belief."
Yes. I am saved, born again, adopted into the family of God by His Holy Spirit. God's Spirit bears witness with my spirit that I am a child of God. God speaks to me through His Word; illuminates my mind with His Spirit. Yes, He does speak to me, guides me, directs me, answers prayer, and much much more. I don't have a religion; I have a relationship--a relationship with Jesus Christ my Lord who saved me and delivered me from the penalty of my sin. He has granted me forgiveness of sins--past, present, and future; eternal life.
Yes, I speak to my Lord every day and He speaks to me. Praise the Lord.
DHK
I quote (for the second time) your "challenge was to cite an authoritative source for the definition of the word "faith" which does not use the word "beleif."
You said "authoritative" source.
You will find that "authoritative source at the top of page 10. It is called the Bible. It is much more authoritative than the dictionary's definitions which you already flatly rejected. Thus I have given you an authoritative definition based on the Word of God itself. There is no other authority that is any higher. You wanted an authoritative source. I gave it to you.
You have no cause to reject it.
DHK
BA&A you basis for arguing is so misguided, you want steaver etc. to prove using "science" that John wrote the book of John, yet you cannot even prove using "science" that he did not. Your circular argument falls apart because you cannot provide scientific evidence that you are right. The only way to disprove that John did not write the Book of John would be to "Scientifically" prove that he did not. Since you cannot do this your argument is invalid.
Your relying on science is also faith, for you cannot prove with 100% accuracy that John did not, write the book. Your quotes all rely on belief of when it was written. The people denying the validity of the author are faithful that there conclusions are correct, i.e. they have a BELIEF that they are correct. For you to put your trust and belief in their analysis and then try to discredit an actual believer his ludicrous for you do the exact same thing in reverse.
Your relying on science is also faith, for you cannot prove with 100% accuracy that John did not, write the book. Your quotes all rely on belief of when it was written. The people denying the validity of the author are faithful that there conclusions are correct, i.e. they have a BELIEF that they are correct. For you to put your trust and belief in their analysis and then try to discredit an actual believer his ludicrous for you do the exact same thing in reverse.
BA&A here is some Internal Indirect Evidence that allows one to come to very LOGICAL conclusions that John is the author. Notice I use logic which according to your definition faith does not use.
1) The author is familiar with the geographical features of Palestine.
2) He is familiar with Galilee, Samaria and Judea.
3) Also familiar with the city of Jerusalem.
What does this familiarity with the geographical features of Palestine imply about the author?
The fact that the author possessed such detailed geographical knowledge about Palestine implies he was a resident of Palestine, who had frequented these places.
4)The author is aquainted with the social and religious conditions of Palestine. He is also familiar with Jewish and Samaritan religious beliefs and is well aquainted with how Jewish festivals were celebrated at the Temple and with purification rites, Passover, Tabernacles, dedication etc. What does the FACT that the author has such knowledge imply about him?
To have such detailed knowledge of the social and religous conditions of Palestine and Jewish and Samaritan religious beliefs implies that the author had first-hand experience of Jews and Samaritans, which suggests that he is from Palestine. His good knowledge of the Temple and Jewish festivals implies that he was a participant in the various Jewish festivals, which also implies that he was a Palestinian Jew. His knowledge of Jewish purification rites is consistent with first-hand experience.
5)The author seems to have been an eyewitness to the events that he is describing,granted this is debatable, but the general impression is that the accounts derive from an eyewitness. Similarly the author has good knowledge of the apostolic group, so what does this say about his identity?
To be an eyewitness and to have good knowledge of the apostolic group implies either that the author himself was one of the twelve or that at least he was a follower of Jesus who had much contact with the twelve.
This is all based on how the author writes the book, his grammar and language are FACTS of the time period it was written. The author has written his gospel in Aramaic or a very Semitic type of Greek. Concerning the details relating to the Aramaic/Semitic feature of the gospel is much dispute the following is a list of those grammatical features of John most scholars agree suggests that the text is trnslated Aramaic or bears the influence of an author who thought in Armaic but wrote in Greek.
1) The author is familiar with the geographical features of Palestine.
2) He is familiar with Galilee, Samaria and Judea.
3) Also familiar with the city of Jerusalem.
What does this familiarity with the geographical features of Palestine imply about the author?
The fact that the author possessed such detailed geographical knowledge about Palestine implies he was a resident of Palestine, who had frequented these places.
4)The author is aquainted with the social and religious conditions of Palestine. He is also familiar with Jewish and Samaritan religious beliefs and is well aquainted with how Jewish festivals were celebrated at the Temple and with purification rites, Passover, Tabernacles, dedication etc. What does the FACT that the author has such knowledge imply about him?
To have such detailed knowledge of the social and religous conditions of Palestine and Jewish and Samaritan religious beliefs implies that the author had first-hand experience of Jews and Samaritans, which suggests that he is from Palestine. His good knowledge of the Temple and Jewish festivals implies that he was a participant in the various Jewish festivals, which also implies that he was a Palestinian Jew. His knowledge of Jewish purification rites is consistent with first-hand experience.
5)The author seems to have been an eyewitness to the events that he is describing,granted this is debatable, but the general impression is that the accounts derive from an eyewitness. Similarly the author has good knowledge of the apostolic group, so what does this say about his identity?
To be an eyewitness and to have good knowledge of the apostolic group implies either that the author himself was one of the twelve or that at least he was a follower of Jesus who had much contact with the twelve.
This is all based on how the author writes the book, his grammar and language are FACTS of the time period it was written. The author has written his gospel in Aramaic or a very Semitic type of Greek. Concerning the details relating to the Aramaic/Semitic feature of the gospel is much dispute the following is a list of those grammatical features of John most scholars agree suggests that the text is trnslated Aramaic or bears the influence of an author who thought in Armaic but wrote in Greek.
Where has Pontius Pilate (alias born again and again) gone? Has his mouth been stopped by the authorities or did he see on his own that he was no match against God's Word?
I realize that being a Christian is required for becoming a member here, however, I really don't have a problem with a non Christian coming in to learn about Jesus (not that I have any say in the matter). Sadly, it was obvious that Pilate had no time for the Truth. He just wanted to tell us simple-minded silly Christians that all we have is one of many forms of religion which are all based on the blind leading the blind. If he had a personal relationship with Jesus Christ he would then KNOW the difference!
God Bless!
I realize that being a Christian is required for becoming a member here, however, I really don't have a problem with a non Christian coming in to learn about Jesus (not that I have any say in the matter). Sadly, it was obvious that Pilate had no time for the Truth. He just wanted to tell us simple-minded silly Christians that all we have is one of many forms of religion which are all based on the blind leading the blind. If he had a personal relationship with Jesus Christ he would then KNOW the difference!
God Bless!
Yes. I am saved, born again, adopted into the family of God by His Holy Spirit. God's Spirit bears witness with my spirit that I am a child of God. God speaks to me through His Word; illuminates my mind with His Spirit. Yes, He does speak to me, guides me, directs me, answers prayer, and much much more. I don't have a religion; I have a relationship--a relationship with Jesus Christ my Lord who saved me and delivered me from the penalty of my sin. He has granted me forgiveness of sins--past, present, and future; eternal life.
Yes, I speak to my Lord every day and He speaks to me. Praise the Lord.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]DHK, thanks, you brought me to tears of co-passion! The Lord shall be with you!
born again and again
New Member
By Steaver:
"Where has Pontius Pilate (alias born again and again) gone? Has his mouth been stopped by the authorities or did he see on his own that he was no match against God's Word?"
By Gerhard:
"DHK, thanks, you brought me to tears of co-passion! The Lord shall be with you!"
By DHK:
"BA&A here is some Internal Indirect Evidence that allows one to come to very LOGICAL conclusions that John is the author. Notice I use logic which according to your definition faith does not use.
1) The author is familiar with the geographical features of Palestine.
2) He is familiar with Galilee, Samaria and Judea.
3) Also familiar with the city of Jerusalem."
To Steaver:
No such luck Steaver. I tell you that I am a believer, that it is not necessary for me to know the identity of who wrote the book of John and you respond by referring to me as Pontius Pilot. Well, I guess we've tapped the bottom of the pool of your intellectual capabilities.
To Gerhard:
May I quote you on that? ". . .tears of co-passion." That statement is probably representative of the sentiment of most of the above responses to the question of scientific evidence as to the identity of who wrote the book of John.
To DHK: Tell me you are not really trying to argue that, because the author was familiar with the geography of the area that it had to be John. Here's an interesting thought. Some other people who lived during the same time period and several decades later also were familiar with the geography.
Listen, it is understandable that you do not acknowledge that you can offer no scientific proof as to the identity of the author, because that would be admitting fault or mistake or the state of being incorrect in your debate tactics. However, it is abundantly clear to anyone who reads these postings that you have given up on the actual debate and resorted to citing biblical opinions.
"Where has Pontius Pilate (alias born again and again) gone? Has his mouth been stopped by the authorities or did he see on his own that he was no match against God's Word?"
By Gerhard:
"DHK, thanks, you brought me to tears of co-passion! The Lord shall be with you!"
By DHK:
"BA&A here is some Internal Indirect Evidence that allows one to come to very LOGICAL conclusions that John is the author. Notice I use logic which according to your definition faith does not use.
1) The author is familiar with the geographical features of Palestine.
2) He is familiar with Galilee, Samaria and Judea.
3) Also familiar with the city of Jerusalem."
To Steaver:
No such luck Steaver. I tell you that I am a believer, that it is not necessary for me to know the identity of who wrote the book of John and you respond by referring to me as Pontius Pilot. Well, I guess we've tapped the bottom of the pool of your intellectual capabilities.
To Gerhard:
May I quote you on that? ". . .tears of co-passion." That statement is probably representative of the sentiment of most of the above responses to the question of scientific evidence as to the identity of who wrote the book of John.
To DHK: Tell me you are not really trying to argue that, because the author was familiar with the geography of the area that it had to be John. Here's an interesting thought. Some other people who lived during the same time period and several decades later also were familiar with the geography.
Listen, it is understandable that you do not acknowledge that you can offer no scientific proof as to the identity of the author, because that would be admitting fault or mistake or the state of being incorrect in your debate tactics. However, it is abundantly clear to anyone who reads these postings that you have given up on the actual debate and resorted to citing biblical opinions.
born again and again
New Member
I owe DHK an apology, because I misquoted him. The quote in the above posting which I attributed to DHK was actually from Timothy27.
Same response to Timothy27 though.
Same response to Timothy27 though.