Correctness and Accuracy; Belief and Fact

[DHK]

Originally posted by born again and again:
You have already demonstrated that you cannot prove who wrote the texts and have basically given up on the debate started with the original posting.

No, you have it backwards.
You put forth the proposition that John did not write the Gsopel of John.
You have failed to prove or give any evidence whatsoever that John was not the author. The onus is not on us to disprove your ridiculous premise. The onus is on you to present evidence to prove the premise that you have set forth, i.e., that John is not the author. In that you have miserably failed.
DHK

 

[steaver]

Ba&a, you said...

So even steaver acknowledges that we may not know who wrote them.

You sure can twist a persons words. I acknowledeged nothing of the sort.

You said...

My original posting never challenged the truth of Jesus, it only challenged the identity of who actually wrote the books.

Right, but then you said...

Second, no one knows what Jesus said, as he never wrote anything down and neither did anyone who witnessed his actions.

It now becomes fair game in the debate, In court you would be required to answer questions concerning your statement because you said it in response to a question which I pointed directly at your opening statement (page one). Which of course was addressing your opening statement but you still refused to answer it. I think you are the one unwilling to debate.

Oh steaver, as you stated earlier on this topic, your scriptures command you to challenge my faith.

If you are a Christian it would be " our " scriptures and you should have read about it many times.

Do you actaully hear voices when you get these commands? Or do you acquire the commands through the communication of "speaking in tongues?"

No and no. I actually read God's Word

and it is right there in black and white. Do you know where God's Word is? Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God . Better find out where it is before your lay claim of the Christian faith. Without it you cannot be born again and cannot be saved.

God Bless!

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by born again and again:

And DHK, the man with all the degrees, should not be asking me for the definition of "science."

I was right then was I? You are that ignorant that you don't know what science is? You cannot only give me a general working definition of science, but don't know the branch of science from which your definitions need to be attained from. Isn't this the real truth? If it isn't, then answer the questions.

But DHK also has a habit of quoting his "definitions" out of context and from obscure sources without citing the source.

An online dictionary obtained from a simple search using the word "dictionary" is not obscure. It was one of the first five that came up. I don't consider that obscure. Sorry for your offence at knowledge.

He did this with the definition of the word "faith". When it was pointed out that he obtained his definition from an obscure opinion site which links to another site for the definition, a site called "emotional literacy"; and it was further ponted out that even his definition from his source used the word "belief" to define "faith", he never responded to the issue again.

You call it obscure; the internet search engine certainly doesn't. I listed for you a number of definitions, and then I went, and listed definitions for you right out of the American Heritange Dictionary, with the URL provided, and still you do not accept it. So what we reall have here is a false accusation.

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

That is the first definition (the primary one) given from the American Heritage Dictionary.
Its link is:
http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/f/f0018400.html
Stop with false accusations. You can find that back on page five.

By the way, DHK, if you desire to used the science of endocrinology, pharmacology or biology to prove who wrote the book of John, go for it.

I am sorry you are further proving yourself to be so ignorant in the area of science. That is why I challenged you to define science and the area of science you want me to draw definitions from--because I don't think you really know what you are talking about.

By the way, just so the record is clear, I am making no demands that DHK or steaver do anything. You have already demonstrated that you cannot prove who wrote the texts and have basically given up on the debate started with the original posting.

No, you have it backwards. You came on this board with some outlandish claims, and have yet to prove a single one of them. Why? Where is your proof?
DHK

 

[timothy27]

Ba&a Your arguments are faulty and elementary at best. First you have done no research into the accuracy of the texts you do not believe, and the arguments you use to debase them are illogical. Based on your "logic" we should not believe anything we read because we did not personally see them written. So you are telling me that if you tell someone something and they pass it on to their children and their children write it down does that mean you did not say it?

 

[born again and again]

Per DHK:

"You put forth the proposition that John did not write the Gsopel of John."

Actually, what I wrote was that no one really knows the identity of the individual or individuals who actaully wrote the book of John.

And I cited authoritative sources for this proposition, with quotes. Neither DHK, nor the mighty steaver, nor anyone else offered any scientific proof to contradict the quotes or sources.

Regarding ethe definition of the word, "faith", I stated:

"He (referring to DHK), did this with the definition of the word "faith". When it was pointed out that he obtained his definition from an obscure opinion site which links to another site for the definition, a site called "emotional literacy"; and it was further ponted out that even his definition from his source used the word "belief" to define "faith", he never responded to the issue again."

Right above, in the middle of this page, of this page, DHK again repeats his definition of "faith":

"1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

That is the first definition (the primary one) given from the American Heritage Dictionary."

That's right, DHK, you used the word "belief" to define "faith." Confident belief is still belief.

So, even though DHK cited one reliable source and one obscure opinion text (cited in his earlier posting and noted in my follow up) for his source for the definition (emotional literacy.com), it still uses the word "belief" to define the meaning of the word "faith." That debate is therefore over.

Several pages back I posted quotes from several sources (sources were referenced), which concluded that no one knows for sure who wrote the book of John. The sources quoted on my posting clearly state that they considered intrinsic and extrinsic evidence.

Neither DHK, steaver nor anyone else has quoted any scientific authority to contradict these sources.

 

[born again and again]

DHK wrote:

"What scientific data did you wish me to post: from endocrinology, histology, cellular biology, pharmacology, etc."

In response I wrote:

"By the way, DHK, if you desire to use the science of endocrinology, pharmacology or biology to prove who wrote the book of John, go for it."

The best DHK was able to respond with was:

"I am sorry you are further proving yourself to be so ignorant in the area of science."

I further wrote:

"By the way, just so the record is clear, I am making no demands that DHK or steaver do anything. You have already demonstrated that you cannot prove who wrote the texts and have basically given up on the debate started with the original posting."

Case closed.

 

[born again and again]

Remember folks, this is religion and not science. It is based on belief, i.e. "faith."

It it were easy to demonstrate it by scientific fact it would not be a faith based belief.

In other words, if it were easy to prove the identity of the author of the book of John, it would not be so easily challenged and it would not be legitimately questioned by scientific and historical scholars.

Remember, it is not necessary to have any scientific proof as to the identity of who wrote the book of John to have faith.

steaver claims that his faith is based on truth. Where is his scientific authority as to his "truth" regarding the identity of the person who physically wrote the book of John. He has none, or else he, of all people, would have cited it. The only thing steaver ever cites is scriptures. Well, the Bible is a good book, but its not the only book. He is a good Christian Soldier, though.

 

[born again and again]

I continue to challenge all comers to cite a scientific authority which conclusively proves the identity of the person who wrote the book of John. Any other posting is mere theological rhetoric and therefore non-responsive to the original topic of this posting.

If something is based on science, then it does not require faith to understand it; mere logic will suffice. On the other hand, any religion, Christian or other, requires faith, i.e. "belief," in its members.

No proof and no science is required; just faith, and that's the true beauty of it.

 

[DHK]

BA&A
Your sources: one a Catholic encyclopedia,
another, Barclay--a liberal oommentator who I later quoted from more extensively showing you that your quote was out of context.
The rest--all liberals.
When you quoted infidels you will arrive at unbelief. What a surprise!

As for the relation between faith and belief, have you ever heard of synonyms? Yes the two words are very much related, and often related words are used in defining one another. That is not rocket science. But BA&A, the fact that you feel that you are smarter than the dictionary and dismiss the dictionary's definition of faith outright without any valid reason, only shows the extent of your arrogance.

So what have you offered this thread besides arrogance. You have cited the opinions of some liberals that deny much of the Bible. Their opinion, without evidence, state that John is not is not the author of said Gospel. Pure speculation, no evidence. It is just an opinion. You may as well believe the moon is made of green cheese. I would rather believe what God's Word says about itself. I have already posted in this thread the internal evidence that demonstrates that John is the author.
I have also given author sources as well. You igonre both. The fact is: you don't want to learn.
DHK

 

[born again and again]

I understand your thinking, DHK. The book of John must have been written by John, or else why would it be referred to as the book of John?

DHK, I'm sorry if you do not like the following quotes and their sources, but you are encouraged to produce some scientific contradiction and cite your source.

"The identity of John has remained a mystery, although tradition has it that he is "the disciple that Jesus loved" mentioned in John 13:23. But here is a curious thing. In the entire gospel, John never mentions his own name (although he does mention other gospel writers). His purpose is to exalt the deity of Jesus. It seems out of character for him to pat himself on the back in that one verse, if in fact he was John the apostle.

William Barclay gives us an elegant answer. He states outright that even if John was not the direct author of the book, it was at least written under his authority. The book likely dates from about 100 AD, the last of the books to be written. If this dating is accurate, John would have been very old. Barclay posits that it was probably a group writing remembrances from John's fading memories, and it was they who described John as the disciple Jesus loved.."

RESOURCES:

The Literary Guide to the Bible, edited by Robert Alter and Frank Kermode, Belknap Press, 1987
The Gospel of John, by William Barclay, Westminster John Knox Press, 1975
The Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible, by Robin Lane Fox, Knopf, 1992
The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and Christian Origins, by Burton Mack, HarperSanFrancisco, 1993
Testament, by David Morell, Warner Books, 1993
The Synoptic Gospels, by Keith F. Nickle, John Knox Press, 1980
The Historical Figure of Jesus, by E.P. Sanders, Penguin Books, 1993
The Catholic Encyclopedia - online at www.newadvent.org/cathen/

By the way, can you explain what you mean when you say that the above Barclay quote is taken out of context? Can you cite any example of how it was taken out of context?

Of course you can throw out the reference to the Catholic source, cause every good Christian knows that Catholics are not really Christians, right?

Go ahead and show me the money. Show me your scientific evidence as to the identity of the person who actually wrote the book of John.

 

[born again and again]

I'm not a libral but DHK claims that liberals are infidels. I think I'll borrow that one for future use. I guess that if I was a liberal that DHK's statement might be considered "trolling." Hmmmm . . .food for thought.

 

[born again and again]

If liberals are infidels, does that mean that muslims, by their faith, should kill them?

 

[born again and again]

By the way, DHK, it is curious that you state that I, "you feel that you are smarter than the dictionary and dismiss the dictionary's definition of faith outright without any valid reason, only shows the extent of your arrogance."

When what I actaully stated is: (see next reply)

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by born again and again:
I'm not a libral but DHK claims that liberals are infidels. I think I'll borrow that one for future use. I guess that if I was a liberal that DHK's statement might be considered "trolling." Hmmmm . . .food for thought.

So far I have no cause to believe that you are saved, much less a conservative Christian (i.e., not a liberal Christian). You have continuously posted statements of unbelief and given no testimony as to belief in the Word of God or the Christ of the Bible.
Any unbeliever is an infidel.
Accordingly, in the Muslim's mind, any unbeliever (of Islam) is an infidel.

 

[born again and again]

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.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by born again and again:

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.

Is there a need? If I give you one you will just reject it any way. Right?

"Faith is confidence in the word of another."
Biblical faith is confidence in the Word of God.

1 John 5:14-15 And this is the confidence (faith) that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us: And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him.

Abrahamm was a man of faith. He had confidence in the word of another, that is in the Word of God.

Romans 4:20-21 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; And being fully persuaded (confident) that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.

Abraham had faith.
Abraham had confidence in the word of another.
Abraham had confidence in the Word of God.
DHK

 

[born again and again]

I ask DHK to back up his statements with scientific evidence and his only response is that I am an unbeliever and an infidel.

Yeah, how dare anyone ask DHK to back up his statements. It's always much easier to call the challenger names, than to actually debate the topic.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by born again and again:
I ask DHK to back up his statements with scientific evidence and his only response is that I am an unbeliever and an infidel.

Yeah, how dare anyone ask DHK to back up his statements. It's always much easier to call the challenger names, than to actually debate the topic.

You have never answered my questions yet. What scientific evidence do you want. I cannot give what you do not define?
I will state for the third time.
What is science. Define it.
What branch of science do you want evidence from? Name it. Be specific as to what you are looking for.
DHK

 

[born again and again]

This debate topic is not really about who can quote his/her interpretation of the scriptures, but that little fact does not seem to impact some writer's basic urge to just quote scriptures and then give his interpretation of the meaning of the quotes. Does it occur to him that quoting from the scriptures is mostly irrelevant to the question of the actual authorship of the book of John? I did refer to a quote from the book of John in the Barclay quote, cited on the last page.

 

[born again and again]

Also, I checked the first page, cause I wanted to make sure and yep, I verified it, this forum is not about "what is science?" But if DHK has an opinion on what constitutes science, I'm fairly certain that he will reveal it sooner or later.