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?

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #158]

I do not know what else to do besides keep repeating myself. The overwhelming majority of the NT can be demonstrated to have been addressed to audiences at the time, who would have already believed. The authors were addressing the audiences at the time, some 2000 years ago, and they had no concern, nor any idea that anyone else besides the audience at the time would have read what they authored. They most certainly could not have fathomed that what they were writing would have been read by anyone 2000 years later. The question then becomes, who in the world were they targeting with the faith and fear? The intended audiences were already exhibiting faith, and since they were believers, what would they have to fear? It is not like the authors were writing to the unbelieving world in hopes to "hook em". The point is, in order to claim the authors used scare tactics, one would have to demonstrate the authors intended their writings for the unbeliever, and the evidence just does not bear this out.

I already know your position Realjack. "The Bible", or the copies we have which were all placed together by the church, amplifies faith and fear in many spots. If the writings were addressed to believers, and there was not intent for these documents being spread to later audiences in a way to persuade new potential converts, then it is quite odd that the 'NT' amplifies faith and fear in many spots? I would list all of them, but there is almost too many. As I keep telling you, maybe the 'NT" is not what was originally written in these separate documents? Maybe whoever placed together the 'official' accounts we have in the 'Bible', is a lot of added stuff? When one reads the 'NT', faith and fear is amplified all over the dang thing. Such two topics, (faith and fear), would not be addressed to folks who already believe, in all these spots. It's illogical.

Let's kind of go through this. The author of what has been called, Luke and The Actions of the Apostles,

Luke is not trustworthy. You mention Luke a lot. We have absolutely no idea what was changed, and where? See my other thread, as I created it with you in mind. --> (http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=41934)

MY POINT here in this thread, however, is that the version(s) we DO have, promote (faith and fear). If Luke was meant to speak to already believing audiences, it would not need to prop up faith and fear.

Please demonstrate anywhere in the NT where you as the unbeliever is the target.

Paul frequently wrote about faith in the Bible. If he was speaking to believers, this would make little sense. (i.e.):

Salvation by faith:
Paul wrote that salvation comes through faith in Jesus Christ, and that those saved by grace should perform the works God has prepared for them. For example, in Ephesians 2:8-10, Paul wrote, "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works".

Faith and works:
Paul wrote that faith is credited as righteousness, while works are not. For example, in Romans 4:5, Paul wrote, "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies [absolves] the ungodly, his faith is reckoned [credited] as righteousness".

Faith, hope, and love:
In 1 Corinthians 13:13, Paul wrote, “So now, faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love”.
Obeying faith

Paul emphasized the dimension of faith that involves faithfulness or loyalty in Philippians and 1 Thessalonians.
The exact meaning of faith in Paul's letters is not always clear. Nijay Gupta, a professor of New Testament at Portland Seminary, wrote Paul and the Language of Faith to clarify the meaning of faith in Paul's letters.

[Clownboat]

Oh? So, you are saying that your geographical location had nothing to do with you being a convinced Christian? All other believers, no matter the religion are simply victims of the "odd mechanism for believing in a god concept" which involves their geographical location, but you somehow escaped this?

Copy/paste to save time and sanity: "The gods of other religions are human inventions, unlike the god concept you believe in due to your geographic location on this planet (which I find to be an odd mechanism for believing in a god concept)."

My friend, Isaiah was addressing the Jews at the time, and he may have been correct, or he may have been in error.

Well, there goes any chance for considering the book to be reliable.

With this being the case, I do not have to insist all other gods must and have to be false

Fascinating! What other god concept do you find to be true?

in order to understand if there are facts evidence, and reasons to believe the claims of Christ raised from the dead.

Let's forget your false claims about evidence for a bit. What is the mechanism that allows decomposing bodies (organs that have began to liquify) to reanimate back to life?

I do not have to know a thing about any of these other religions in order to know if there would be facts, evidence, and reasons to believe Christ raised from the dead.

This is what is meant by ignorance is bliss. I cannot respect your ignorance and the fact that you use it as an excuse is embarrassing.

To tell you the truth, I really do not know because I have not had any sort of reason to study these other religions, and I really do not have a desire to do so.

I do not respect your ignorance. I do acknowledge it though and appreciate you laying it out for all to know.

Again, I have not studied these other religions in order to determine if there would be facts, evidence, and reasons to believe these other religions

I do not respect your ignorance, but I do acknowledge it.

I also do not have to insist that all these other religions must, and have to be false.

Neato! What other god concepts should I consider as being real and true?

The problem word with your sentence here is the word, "experiencing". I have no problem with any of my children examining, analyzing, studying, etc., other religions. I have explained to my children what it is I believe, and why I believe it, and have never insisted they believe the same.

Have you been honest with your children about just how ignorant you are when it comes to competing god concepts? Shouldn't they be informed about how naïve you actually are on this matter?

I have taught them to think critically, even about Christianity.

Hey kids, think critically about Christianity.
Ok dad, but what about Islam or Hinduism?
I'm ignorant about such things.
.....

I notice that you only offer one choice to your children.

Oh really? How in the world could you have noticed such a thing from where you are at?

You are very open about your ignorance in this regard.

Don't you find being religious due to geography to be an odd mechanism for determining if a god concept is real?

Your question makes no sense.

Readers, please ask yourself if the above sentence makes sense and then privately cast your judgment.

It is indeed a fact that many, if not most folks are Christian because of the way in which they were brought up, and this may indeed involve their geographical location. However, I cannot imagine anyone at all determining their god concept must be real because of my location.

You can't! That is odd as you have demonstrated it here for all of us to see already. You claim that you teach your children to think critically about Christianity while you are ignorant about religions that exist on other geographic locations. Your kids have one option for a god concept, and the one you would have them pick is due to geography and a mechanism to protect this belief is to remain ignorant to competing concepts.

I do, but if they are in fact just human inventions as they seem to be, religion by geography explains this.

Yes, "religion by geography" explains why many folks believe as they do

Isn't that an odd way to arrive at a god concept being real?
Wouldn't being ignorant to competing god concepts prohibit a person from finding the true God (unless they just happen to be born in the correct geographic location).

If religions are human inventions created around the geography of where they were invented, then that would lend credence to the idea that they are untrustworthy, if not false.

My friend, if we could demonstrate beyond doubt that thousands of religions were "created around the geography of where they were invented" this would have nothing whatsoever to do with one being able to determine all religions must and have to be false.

Please don't pretend to care about or even know about other religions. Your ignorance is already known.

In fact, if we could demonstrate beyond any doubt that the overwhelming majority of Christians were so simply based upon their geographical location, this would not in any way demonstrate the falsehood of the belief.

I acknowledge this and also acknowledge that accepting ideas because of where one is born is not a valid way to find truth.

If there was some sort of god who helped you with these replies, then I can assure you this god is in need of help himself.

Sorry, but you are far to ignorant (your words) to offer such assurances about competing god concepts.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #162]

"The gods of other religions are human inventions, unlike the god concept you believe in due to your geographic location on this planet (which I find to be an odd mechanism for believing in a god concept)."

First, I have never suggested that "other religions are human inventions". This is what you are saying. Next, my geographical location has nothing to do with what it is I happen to believe. Again, this would have more than likely been the way in which you operated when you were a convinced Christian. I am fully aware of other religions in that they exists. However, unlike you, I am not insisting they must, and have to be false, the way in which you are doing now, and also the way in which you insisted this to be the case when you were once a convinced Christian.

So then, while you find it odd for folks to believe their "god concept" is true due to their geographical locations, I find it extremely hard to imagine one coming to the conclusion that what they believe must be true, because of where I live. That would be next to insane. There is a tremendous difference between one being brought up in a certain religion and simply accepting what they were taught to be true without question, as opposed to one coming to the conclusion that what they believe must be true, because of where I live. I have never heard anyone make such an argument.

With the above being said, allow me to tell you what I find to be an "odd mechanism" for one coming to the conclusion that a belief may be false. That would be for one to acknowledge that most folks around the world who adhere to a certain religion, adhere to the religion of that particular land, and then go on to be under the impression that this would be any sort of evidence against any of the religions. The only thing this is evidence of, is that most folks believe what they have been taught, but it is not in any way evidence that the belief is false.

Well, there goes any chance for considering the book to be reliable.

Oh really? Exactly what book are you talking about? If it is Isaiah, if he may have been wrong about there only being one god, how would this have a thing in the world to do with considering the whole of the book being unreliable? Moreover, we have not established the fact that Isaiah was wrong, but rather that it was a possibility. Again, how in the world would this establish the book is unreliable? If, however, we are talking about the whole of the Bible, if we could establish as a fact that the whole of Isaiah was unreliable, how would this establish the rest of the authors in the Bible would be unreliable? You see, you continue to demonstrate one who is under the impression that if anything which is contained in the Bible can be demonstrated to be unreliable, then this demonstrates the whole of what is contained is unreliable, when the fact of the matter is, the authors stand on their own, and have nothing whatsoever to do with the rest of the authors. How can you not understand this? It seems as if you hold the Bible in some sort of high regard, while I as a Christian have no regard for the Bible at all. The Bible is simply a collection of writings the Church deemed to be canonical which would have nothing to do with what each individual author had to say.

Fascinating! What other god concept do you find to be true?

Well...... Since I have not had any sort of reason to investigate any of these religions you are referring to, I have not found any of them to be true, or false. But again, I do not have to know a thing about any of these other religions in order to understand if there would be facts, evidence, and reasons to believe the Christian claims of the resurrection. It is like you are under the impression that if I do not accept these other claims as being true, then there would be no reason at all to believe there are good reasons to another claim, when the fact is again, one would not have to know about another claim, in order to understand there are good reasons to believe the claims of the resurrection.

What is the mechanism that allows decomposing bodies (organs that have began to liquify) to reanimate back to life?

What you are describing would be impossible. But the thing is, we know we had those who were proclaiming that Jesus had rose from the dead, and we have enough facts and evidence to convince most all scholars that these folks were not making the story up but were truly convinced in what they report. Now, I am not insisting a resurrection occurred, but I would like to know what would explain the facts and evidence we can know, which would not include the extraordinary (meaning out of the ordinary).

This is what is meant by ignorance is bliss. I cannot respect your ignorance and the fact that you use it as an excuse is embarrassing.

My friend, saying that "I do not have to know a thing about any of these other religions", does not mean I do not know anything at all about them. In other words, I know about Judaism, Islam, Mormonism, Scientology, Buddhism, etc. The point is, even if I was "ignorant" (as you suggest) this would have nothing whatsoever to do with whether there would be facts, evidence, and reasons to believe the resurrection. If you suggest there is no reason to believe the claims of the resurrection, then what best explains the facts, and evidence we can know?

I do not respect your ignorance. I do acknowledge it though and appreciate you laying it out for all to know.

Okay then, exactly what religion do you accept to be true? If there is none, then can you explain how you have come to the conclusion that all of the religions are false? The thing is, I have not insisted that any religion is false, and I have not insisted any religion is true. I have simply suggested there are very good reasons to believe the claims of the resurrection. If you would like to insist there are not very good reasons to believe the claims of the resurrection, then what do you suggest would be the best explanation of the facts and evidence we can know concerning the claims?

Neato! What other god concepts should I consider as being real and true?

I would not suggest that you "consider" any "god concepts as being real and true" including Christianity. If you have deemed Christianity to be false, I have no problem with that in the least. If, since you have deemed Christianity to be false, this leads you to be convinced that all other religions must and have to be false, I have no problem with that. I have no problem at all with whatever conclusion you come to as long as it does not involve you insisting there would be no reason to believe what you were once convinced of, when you cannot demonstrate this to be the case.

Have you been honest with your children about just how ignorant you are when it comes to competing god concepts? Shouldn't they be informed about how naïve you actually are on this matter?

Yep! I have clearly explained to each of them that I had no interest in any religion at all and would have continued except for the fact that I knew they would be exposed to Christianity. Therefore, I explained to them that I had no choice but to examine the Christian claims, and I went on to explain to them exactly how I came to my conclusions, and I also invited them to examine what I had to say critically and would be happy with any conclusion they may come to.

Hey kids, think critically about Christianity.
Ok dad, but what about Islam or Hinduism?
I'm ignorant about such things.

No! It would be more like; I am not ignorant about "Islam or Hinduism" but if you are interested in these religions then I would suggest you study them critically as well in order to determine if there would be reasons to believe them. I cannot imagine anyone who may adhere to any religion at all, not considering the idea that the religion they adhere to may be false, while there may be others which may be true, including my children, and I would expect this to be something they would have to consider.

You are very open about your ignorance in this regard.

Again, let us get this straight. Saying that, "I do not have to know a thing at all about any other religion in order to know if there would be facts, evidence, and reasons to believe the Christian claims of the resurrection" is not at all saying that I am completely ignorant of any other religion. Rather, it is simply demonstrating the fact that I do not have to study any other religion in order to know if there would be reasons to believe another religion.

Readers, please ask yourself if the above sentence makes sense and then privately cast your judgment.

YES! Readers, please make this make sense in your mind. Who in the world would ever come to the conclusion that what they believe must be true because of their geographical location? How in the world could this make sense to anyone other than one who is insane? Of course, there are certainly many, if not the majority of folks who adhere to a certain religion because this is the way in which they have been brought up, which would pertain to their geographical location, but this would have nothing whatsoever to do with these folks determining what they believe to be true, because of their location.

What is odd is for one to know that most all folks adhere to the religion of the location they live in and come to the conclusion that this would have anything at all to do with a particular religion being false.

You can't! That is odd as you have demonstrated it here for all of us to see already. You claim that you teach your children to think critically about Christianity while you are ignorant about religions that exist on other geographic locations. Your kids have one option for a god concept, and the one you would have them pick is due to geography and a mechanism to protect this belief is to remain ignorant to competing concepts.

Again, when I say that "I do not have to know a thing about any of the other religions in order to know if there would be reasons to believe the claims of the resurrection" does not mean that I am completely ignorant of these other religions. Most all folks are aware that there are many religions in the world, including you, me, and my children. You, me, and my children are completely free to examine any of these religions. However, and again, we do not have to know anything about any of the other religions in order to know if there would be facts, evidence, and reasons in support of another.

Yes, I have taught my children to think critically about everything including Christianity, because I do not want them to believe something simply because this is what they were taught. Rather, I want them to think through it all themselves in order for them to know what it is they believe, and why they believe it, even if they reject Christianity. Because you see, I do not want them to grab ahold of something they have not really been convinced of and go on to maybe become a "drunk in the holy ghost Christian, three continents for decades" only to come to realize they never used their own mind to come to such conclusions. How can it be hard to imagine that a parent would want their children to think for themselves and come to their own conclusions? The only reason I can think of that a parent would want a child to do such a thing, is because the parent is not real sure what it is they believe, nor why they believe as they do, and so they would rather the child simply believe as taught.

So then, it has nothing to do with "the one I would have them pick" or their geographical location, because what I would have them pick is what they have studied and examined for themselves and if this means they adhere to another religion, or no religion at all, then this would mean that I have done my job in instilling into my children to think for themselves.

The sad thing about this conversation is that I cannot imagine anyone who adheres to any religion at all not thinking about the fact that they adhere to a religion of their geographical location and going on to realize that adherents of other religions are in the same boat, and going on to acknowledge that this would have nothing to do with the truth of the matter, and yet here you are bringing this into the conversation as if it is the "end all, be all" when this is a very lame argument. The only thing this demonstrates is that the overwhelming majority of those who adhere to a religion do so because of the way in which they were brought up, which could and does most to the time with the location they live in. This is not shocking in the least. The fact of the matter is, the overwhelming majority of Christians I know do not really know what they believe, nor why they believe it, and they are Christian because this is the way in which they were brought up, and they really do not want to have to think through the whole thing in order to determine if what they think they believe may in fact be in error. How in the world can this translate in one's mind that this is evidence the belief is false is beyond my ability to understand.

Isn't that an odd way to arrive at a god concept being real?

It would be if this is what folks are doing. However, I cannot imagine anyone at all coming to the conclusion that the religion they adhere to is true because of where they live. I also cannot imagine anyone at all not thinking about this themselves and acknowledging this to be the case. I mean anyone with any thinking ability at all would have already thought through such a thing. What I am attempting to figure out is how this is any sort of evidence in your mind as to a particular religion being false? I mean, if my 2-year-old grandson believes the earth travels around the sun for no other reason than this is what he has been taught, does it make what he believes to be any less true?

Wouldn't being ignorant to competing god concepts prohibit a person from finding the true God (unless they just happen to be born in the correct geographic location).

My friend, you know, and I know, that most folks who adhere to a religion are not completely ignorant of the other religions, and they are free to examine any they wish. However, and again, one would not have to examine any other religion in order to determine if there would be good reasons to believe another. As an example, I am sure that most all Christians here in the U.S. knows of a number of different religions, and they are free to examine any they wish. If they choose not to examine any other religion, and continue to be a Christian simply because this is what they were taught, this would have nothing whatsoever to do with the truth or falsehood of what they believe.

Please don't pretend to care about or even know about other religions. Your ignorance is already known.

Again, you know, and I know, and everyone else knows that most all folks who adhere to a religion are aware of other religions. All you are doing is to avoid acknowledging that this would have nothing whatsoever to do with the truth or falsehood of said religion.

I acknowledge this and also acknowledge that accepting ideas because of where one is born is not a valid way to find truth.

GOOD GRIEF! You act as if you are saying something that is some sort of revelation. There cannot possibly be anyone who is making the argument that the best way to determine the truth of a religion is to stick to the religion of your geographical location. You also continue to make these comments as if you are the only one who has ever thought of it, when I cannot imagine anyone who adheres to any religion not thinking about this themselves. I also cannot imagine anyone acknowledging the fact that most folks who adhere to a particular religion do so because of their geographical location, and come to the conclusion that this would have anything at all to do with the truth and or falsehood of the religion.

Sorry, but you are far to ignorant (your words) to offer such assurances about competing god concepts.

First, I do not believe I used the word "ignorant" nor anything close to it. So........ I do not know how you say it is "my words"? Next, one would not have to know a thing about any sort of god in order to determine that what you have to say above did not derive from the supernatural. It's more like, elementary.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #161]

If the writings were addressed to believers, and there was not intent for these documents being spread to later audiences in a way to persuade new potential converts, then it is quite odd that the 'NT' amplifies faith and fear in many spots?

We have to deal with the facts and evidence we have, and the fact is, the overwhelming majority of what is contained in the NT can be demonstrated to have been addressed to believing audiences at the time, with the authors having no concern, nor any idea that what they were writing would be read by anyone other than the intended audience, and they certainly had no idea about the Bible. So then, anything they may have authored concerning what you call, "faith and fear", was addressed to believing audiences at the time, so unless you can somehow demonstrate the authors were targeting unbelievers we will have to stick to the evidence we have which is extremely strong.

As I keep telling you, maybe the 'NT" is not what was originally written in these separate documents? Maybe whoever placed together the 'official' accounts we have in the 'Bible', is a lot of added stuff?

Maybe so, but it is from the documents we now have which has convinced most all scholars (because it cannot be denied) that the earliest followers (including the apostles) did not make the story of the resurrection up but were rather convinced that what they reported was fact. Again, unless you have some sort of evidence the scholars are in error, then what we have contained in the NT is at the very least enough facts and evidence to know this much, which again, is pretty stout.

Such two topics, (faith and fear), would not be addressed to folks who already believe, in all these spots. It's illogical.

Which does not bode well for your argument. In other words, since it can be demonstrated that the overwhelming majority of what is contained was intended for those who already believed, then the argument concerning "faith and fear" makes no sense.

MY POINT here in this thread, however, is that the version(s) we DO have, promote (faith and fear). If Luke was meant to speak to already believing audiences, it would not need to prop up faith and fear.

It is clear that Theophilus, (whomever he was) was a believer. Again, this is why your argument makes no sense.

Paul frequently wrote about faith in the Bible. If he was speaking to believers, this would make little sense. (i.e.):

Paul wrote nothing in the Bible. Paul wrote long before any sort of Bible, and everything which Paul wrote was addressed to those who already believed. In fact, much of what Paul wrote was addressing concerns in the particular Church he was addressing at the time and would have nothing to do with us. I mean, just look at the letter Paul addresses to Philemon. This is a very personal letter only intended for Philemon and would have nothing whatsoever to do with me. When Paul addresses the Corinthians, he talks about a member taking his father's wife. What would that have to do with me? You are simply making my argument for me.

Salvation by faith:
Paul wrote that salvation comes through faith in Jesus Christ, and that those saved by grace should perform the works God has prepared for them. For example, in Ephesians 2:8-10, Paul wrote, "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works".

How can you not understand that this would be intended for this believing Church? If you have Christians in this Church who are under the impression that they are saved by the works they perform, then it would only be right for Paul to correct this thinking by reminding them that salvation is by faith in the works of God alone, and has nothing to do with your performance.

Faith, hope, and love:
In 1 Corinthians 13:13, Paul wrote, “So now, faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love”.

'I skipped the next one because the same would apply. However, as far as this passage in Corinthians is concerned, do you even realize what you are reading here? Paul had just spent chapters concerning the abuse of the spiritual gifts going on in this Church, and now that he has corrected this abuse, he then turns his attention to those things which are greater than seeking after such gifts. Again, Paul is addressing concerns going on in that Church, at that time, and the audience were already believers.

Paul emphasized the dimension of faith that involves faithfulness or loyalty in Philippians and 1 Thessalonians.

I do not know what to tell you other than, the Philippians, and the Thessalonians were believing Churches and also the intended audiences.

[POI]

We have to deal with the facts and evidence we have, and the fact is, the overwhelming majority of what is contained in the NT can be demonstrated to have been addressed to believing audiences at the time,

Yes and no.

Yes, in the sense that there exists many claimed "vetted eyewitnesses" to a postmortem Jesus. But, as I continue to point out to you, for which I do not recall you ever addressing, such claimed 'eyewitnesses' would not hold any water with your lawyer friend. Meaning, your lawyer friend would not count any of these said 'eyewitnesses' as properly deposed witnesses - in what these folks were actually claimed to have seen or witnessed. Why? Well, for starters, none of these alleged folks were ever actually deposed to begin with... We start with 'Mark'. Which basically cuts out as soon as Jesus is discovered missing. You admit 'additions' were made by another author to Mark after Mark 16:8. We then turn to 'Luke' which we have many 'facts and evidence' to suggest got much, if not all of its source info from 'Mark and Q', in which we also can surmise that 'Luke' is nothing more than a doctored up or improved 'version' of 'Mark' to persuade the Romans. See my other thread, which was, in part, dedicated to you; as you reference 'Luke' a lot... --> (viewtopic.php?t=41934)

No, in the sense that the 'NT' contains many verses which instruct the reader that faith is needed. Which means that the writer of 'the NT' was aware that all the ones later reading this stuff would have to accept these claims upon 'faith.' As there really is not actually much of any 'facts and evidence' pertaining to the claims that tens or hundreds of postmortem Jesus sightings actually occurred. Hence, in many places, the reader is told to instead apply faith that it actually happened.

unless you can somehow demonstrate the authors were targeting unbelievers we will have to stick to the evidence we have which is extremely strong.

Hebrews 11:6 - And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.

2 Corinthians 5:7 - For we walk by faith, not by sight.

Proverbs 3:5-6 - Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths.

John 3:16 - For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life

Romans 3:22-26 - This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

You get the point.........

Maybe so, but it is from the documents we now have which has convinced most all scholars (because it cannot be denied) that the earliest followers (including the apostles) did not make the story of the resurrection up but were rather convinced that what they reported was fact. Again, unless you have some sort of evidence the scholars are in error, then what we have contained in the NT is at the very least enough facts and evidence to know this much, which again, is pretty stout.

Facts and evidence suggest that everything written after 'Mark' (even before) it was made official as one of the (4) bonafide Gospels centuries later, can be purely made up. We can start with what we know about the origins of 'Luke' in the other aforementioned thread. Which would then mean you no longer can credibly use references to even the earliest known writings of 'Luke' as any reliable 'facts and evidence.'

[Clownboat]

First, I have never suggested that "other religions are human inventions".

I know you are ignorant (not completely though) about other religions, but what do you imagine them to be if not human inventions?

Next, my geographical location has nothing to do with what it is I happen to believe.

And yet below you say this: "What is odd is for one to know that most all folks adhere to the religion of the location they live in and come to the conclusion that this would have anything at all to do with a particular religion being false." (The underlined is what is important by the way. What is in italics is your irrelevant interjection).

However, unlike you, I am not insisting they must, and have to be false, the way in which you are doing now, and also the way in which you insisted this to be the case when you were once a convinced Christian.

Yes, I was a convinced Christian. I am not shy about this.
Now please copy/paste to show that you speak the truth and I insist all religions must be false or kindly retract this claim.

There is a tremendous difference between one being brought up in a certain religion and simply accepting what they were taught to be true without question, as opposed to one coming to the conclusion that what they believe must be true, because of where I live. I have never heard anyone make such an argument.

Correct, and you still haven't heard such an argument.
People believe in their religions (exceptions of course) due to their geography on this planet. This does not speak to any truth claims about any of our available religions. This is why you haven't heard such an argument.

With the above being said, allow me to tell you what I find to be an "odd mechanism" for one coming to the conclusion that a belief may be false. That would be for one to acknowledge that most folks around the world who adhere to a certain religion, adhere to the religion of that particular land, and then go on to be under the impression that this would be any sort of evidence against any of the religions. The only thing this is evidence of, is that most folks believe what they have been taught, but it is not in any way evidence that the belief is false.

You are starting to get it! Praise be!
A person may believe in a religion for a ridiculous reason, but that doesn't determine if the said belief is true or false.

Well, there goes any chance for considering the book to be reliable.

Oh really?

Yup, or have you retracted your previously stated words?
Copy/paste "My friend, Isaiah was addressing the Jews at the time, and he may have been correct, or he may have been in error."

Moreover, we have not established the fact that Isaiah was wrong

Correct, which is why I spoke to reliability.
Bob may be correct about you cheating on a test or he may be in error. Is Bob reliable?

Fascinating! What other god concept do you find to be true?

Well...... Since I have not had any sort of reason to investigate any of these religions you are referring to, I have not found any of them to be true, or false.

I really do appreciate you being so open about being ignorant of other religions. Due to this, you probably shouldn't attempt to call them true or false. So good on you for that.

But again, I do not have to know a thing about any of these other religions in order to understand if there would be facts, evidence, and reasons to believe the Christian claims of the resurrection.

There is no evidence, nor is there a mechanism for decomposing bodies to return to life. Your ignorance about other religions matters not, but I do appreciate your honesty.

It is like you are under the impression that if I do not accept these other claims as being true, then there would be no reason at all to believe there are good reasons to another claim, when the fact is again, one would not have to know about another claim, in order to understand there are good reasons to believe the claims of the resurrection.

Feel free to believe claims made by humans. I care not. If you were to argue that there is evidence that a human (or in the Bible's case, many humans) returned to life after decomposition, that is a claim I take issue with. Again, feel free to believe whatever human claims you want.

What is the mechanism that allows decomposing bodies (organs that have began to liquify) to reanimate back to life?

What you are describing would be impossible.

Then it would seem that we are done here.

Now, I am not insisting a resurrection occurred

That would be an odd insistence for a person that admits that decomposing bodies don't reanimate to life.
For someone to argue that it happened because unknown people may have believed it is not a convincing reason to overturn the impossible. Surely you agree.

My friend, saying that "I do not have to know a thing about any of these other religions", does not mean I do not know anything at all about them. In other words, I know about Judaism, Islam, Mormonism, Scientology, Buddhism, etc.

Super neato! How do you think those religions came about? Do you think that it is more likely that those religions are true because some people (in the correct geography I note) believed claims made by others or that those god concept are actually real Gods?
Should I believe that Mormonism is true because some people actually believed that Joseph Smith had a magic hat and magic glasses?

If you suggest there is no reason to believe the claims of the resurrection, then what best explains the facts, and evidence we can know?

The answer is in the questions I just posed above. Is Mormonism true because it is a fact that some people believed claims about the hat and glasses?
You can lead a horse to water as they say...

Okay then, exactly what religion do you accept to be true?

I'm open to being shown that any religion or one yet known may be true. I'm not willing to claim one is true without good reason. I have been there and done that already in my life. I was once a convinced Christian after all.

If there is none, then can you explain how you have come to the conclusion that all of the religions are false?

Not finding claims to be reliable is not the same as saying the claim is false. It would be good for you to understand this.

The thing is, I have not insisted that any religion is false, and I have not insisted any religion is true. I have simply suggested there are very good reasons to believe the claims of the resurrection.

This is the same reasoning that a Mormon could use. Welcome to the Mormon faith?

If you would like to insist there are not very good reasons to believe the claims of the resurrection, then what do you suggest would be the best explanation of the facts and evidence we can know concerning the claims?

That humans invent religious ideas.
They also believe all sorts of claims. Should we consider that the earth is actually flat because some humans believe it?
Should we believe in Big Foot, Nessie or alien abductions? Humans believe such claims after all. Of course not. Actual, real evidence needs to be provided. Some humans believe a thing is not evidence and you know it.

Yep! I have clearly explained to each of them that I had no interest in any religion at all and would have continued except for the fact that I knew they would be exposed to Christianity. Therefore, I explained to them that I had no choice but to examine the Christian claims, and I went on to explain to them exactly how I came to my conclusions, and I also invited them to examine what I had to say critically and would be happy with any conclusion they may come to.

Do you feel that you have successfully convinced your children that humans believing claims is real evidence for the claim and not just evidence that humans believed a claim? I was once convinced for poor reasons myself and calling human beliefs 'evidence' is not valid as I have shown about flat earth beliefs, Mormonism and on and on.

Rather, it is simply demonstrating the fact that I do not have to study any other religion in order to know if there would be reasons to believe another religion.

This would be why you are ignorant about how other religions came about and survived. I have already addressed how humans believing a thing is not evidence that the said thing is real.

Who in the world would ever come to the conclusion that what they believe must be true because of their geographical location?

Surely not myself. I was born in America and was brought up to be a Christian because of my geographic location though. Do you understand the difference? You're just stuck on trying to defend the truth of your religion when I'm discussing the mechanism for how most humans decide on a religions in the first place. I find picking a religion due to geography to be odd and not reliable.

How in the world could this make sense to anyone other than one who is insane? Of course, there are certainly many, if not the majority of folks who adhere to a certain religion because this is the way in which they have been brought up, which would pertain to their geographical location, but this would have nothing whatsoever to do with these folks determining what they believe to be true, because of their location.

You're starting to get it! Your religion is not false nor true because you picked it due to where you were born. How you arrived at the said religion that you believe is true is what I find to be odd. Wouldn't studying other religions and then deciding be a better way? This is what I'm focusing on. I don't care if you believe your religion is true, though I do take issue with your use of the word evidence.

What is odd is for one to know that most all folks adhere to the religion of the location they live in and come to the conclusion that this would have anything at all to do with a particular religion being false.

Gah! I thought you were starting to get it.

Again, when I say that "I do not have to know a thing about any of the other religions in order to know if there would be reasons to believe the claims of the resurrection" does not mean that I am completely ignorant of these other religions.

Neato! So how do you think other religions, NOT YOUR OWN, came about? What is the mechanism for the thousands of religious beliefs that humans have believed in throughout known time?
(This is where you have used the 'ignorant defense' in the past).

However, and again, we do not have to know anything about any of the other religions in order to know if there would be facts, evidence, and reasons in support of another.

No one has claimed that you must know about other religions in order to examine claims made for another. That some humans believe that the earth is flat is NOT evidence that the earth is flat though. Your use of the word evidence is the biggest problem here in this thread.

Because you see, I do not want them to grab ahold of something they have not really been convinced of and go on to maybe become a "drunk in the holy ghost Christian, three continents for decades" only to come to realize they never used their own mind to come to such conclusions.

Wait a minute. I was a drunk in the Holy Ghost, street evangelizing missionary on three continents for decades. Are you claiming that I never used my mind, or is this just a poor attempt at poisoning the well? You seem truly enthralled with my previously held beliefs. Perhaps you are close to being set free yourself?

So then, it has nothing to do with "the one I would have them pick" or their geographical location,

You sure? You're a Christian, do you live in a geographical 'Christian' part of the world, like America?

The sad thing about this conversation is that I cannot imagine anyone who adheres to any religion at all not thinking about the fact that they adhere to a religion of their geographical location and going on to realize that adherents of other religions are in the same boat, and going on to acknowledge that this would have nothing to do with the truth of the matter, and yet here you are bringing this into the conversation as if it is the "end all, be all" when this is a very lame argument.

You need to correct yourself. It is you that is focused on your preferred religions as being true or not. I have my own opinions on that, but I'm not claiming that your religions is necessarily false. You are projecting your truth battle on to me when I'm focusing on your incorrect evidence claims and mechanisms for how religions come about.

The only thing this demonstrates is that the overwhelming majority of those who adhere to a religion do so because of the way in which they were brought up, which could and does most to the time with the location they live in.

Right! Don't you find that to be an odd reason to adhere to something? I do. Now believing things because of actual evidence would be a better mechanism if you ask me.

This is not shocking in the least. The fact of the matter is, the overwhelming majority of Christians I know do not really know what they believe, nor why they believe it, and they are Christian because this is the way in which they were brought up, and they really do not want to have to think through the whole thing in order to determine if what they think they believe may in fact be in error. How in the world can this translate in one's mind that this is evidence the belief is false is beyond my ability to understand.

Still battling with your religions being true or false I see.

Isn't that an odd way to arrive at a god concept being real?

It would be if this is what folks are doing.

Let's test for this.
Do you agree or disagree that most humans arrive at their preferred god concept due to their geographic location?
Let me remind you of your words: "the overwhelming majority of those who adhere to a religion do so because of the way in which they were brought up, which could and does most to the time with the location they live in."
Folks are in fact arriving at their god concepts as being real due to geography.

What I am attempting to figure out is how this is any sort of evidence in your mind as to a particular religion being false?

Please get this through your head. Religions are not true nor false because of geography. Religions are chosen/picked/believed in due to geography though.

I mean, if my 2-year-old grandson believes the earth travels around the sun for no other reason than this is what he has been taught, does it make what he believes to be any less true?

No, good evidence is what justifies beliefs, not geography. Are religions, NOT YOUR OWN believed in due to geography or because they have actual evidence that they are true?

As an example, I am sure that most all Christians here in the U.S. knows of a number of different religions, and they are free to examine any they wish. If they choose not to examine any other religion, and continue to be a Christian simply because this is what they were taught, this would have nothing whatsoever to do with the truth or falsehood of what they believe.

You're getting it again!
Your religions is not true nor false due to geography.
Now, do you find it odd that other religions, NOT YOUR OWN are believed in because of geography? You may not like what this suggests, but it does NOT address as to whether any of these religions are true or not.

All you are doing is to avoid acknowledging that this would have nothing whatsoever to do with the truth or falsehood of said religion.

You are still projecting your truth battle on to me. As to your beliefs I say: "Not my pig, not my farm".

I acknowledge this and also acknowledge that accepting ideas because of where one is born is not a valid way to find truth.

GOOD GRIEF! You act as if you are saying something that is some sort of revelation. There cannot possibly be anyone who is making the argument that the best way to determine the truth of a religion is to stick to the religion of your geographical location.

Just when you were starting to get it again!
You are correct, no one is making the argument that the best way to determine the truth of a religions is to stick to the religion of your geographical location. Isn't it odd though, that most religious people do in fact pick the religions of their geography to then believe as being true? Remember, the said religion may be true or may be false, that is not the focus, just the mechanism for how they survive.

I also cannot imagine anyone acknowledging the fact that most folks who adhere to a particular religion do so because of their geographical location, and come to the conclusion that this would have anything at all to do with the truth and or falsehood of the religion.

Do you see it yet? It is you that is stuck on these religions being true or false.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #165]


I hope to be able to get to the rest of what you have to say, but before we do that, I wanted to take a look at one of the verses you refer to in order to demonstrate that when Paul tells the Corinthians, "we walk by faith and not by sight", the "WE" is not referring to Christians. In other words, Paul was not telling the Corinthians that "we as Christians walk by faith and not by sight". Rather, what Paul is telling the Corinthians is that Paul and those who are traveling with him "walk by faith and not by sight". This becomes clear as you go on through the chapter. Beginning in verse 11 thru 13 here is what Paul had to say,

"Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade people, but we are well known to God; and I hope that we are also well known in your consciences. We are not commending ourselves to you again, but are giving you an opportunity to be proud of us, so that you will have an answer for those who take pride in appearance and not in heart. For if we have lost our minds, it is for God; if we are of sound mind, it is for you."

So then, as you can clearly see, Paul is not in any way instructing the Corinthians to "walk by faith and not by sight". Therefore, at least in this passage, Paul is not instructing Christians to "walk by faith and not by sight".

[POI]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #167]

I think you and I are arguing completely different things here. My thread was started to demonstrate that the authors of "the NT's" intent was to gain new converts --- by way of promoting (faith and fear). Though you could make a case that "Paul" was writing to fellow believers, this is not the point I'm trying to drive home here.... MY POINT instead is to suggest that (the-powers-that-be), who later worked to comprise of what we now refer to as "the NT", put forth a collection of works to promote both (faith and fear). Why? Probably, in part, because the ones wanting to gain new converts knew full well that most are not going to have such said personal direct "Jesus experiences". Hence, it requires (faith) to believe these ancient claims from antiquity anyways. When you read the Bible, it is filled with passages which promote both (faith and fear). If 'facts and evidence' instead suggested that a resurrection was well-founded and supported, then it would instead be illogical to promote both (faith and fear). It would be common knowledge a resurrection did occur, and anyone who rejected Jesus, would know he existed, like 'Satan'. And instead, consciously would choose not to follow.

At absolute best, you could argue Paul, (who is ultimately implicated in almost half of what is now comprised of the NT), did not intend to do this. And yet, you skipped the first verse I offered, via Hebrews 11. And sure, you could even pivot to then argue Paul's definition of faith here is not to 'faithfully' believe that he merely exists - (due to lack in evidence), but to instead have faith that Jesus will actually follow through with his claim(s).

Hence, to move this discussion along, and even to discard Hebrews 11, let's remove Paul's writings altogether. The rest of "the NT" still promotes (faith a fear) throughout. Do you agree or disagree?

And I still welcome your input on the other thread. In a nutshell, I say "Luke" is a non-starter. when asserting 'facts and evidence' for anything other than it merely being a re-vamped/improved rendition of "Mark". What say-you here?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #168]

This is really good stuff, and I appreciate the conversation.

I think you and I are arguing completely different things here. My thread was started to demonstrate that the authors of "the NT's" intent was to gain new converts --- by way of promoting (faith and fear).

Then we are on the same page, because my point has been this would make no sense, since the overwhelming majority of what is contained in the NT can be demonstrated to have been addressed to those who already believed. All of Paul's letters are addressed to believers, Luke, and Acts was addressed to a believer, the letters of Peter was addressed to believers, along with the letters of John, Jude, and Revelations. This only leaves us with the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and John, and this is only because no one is addressed, but since all the others were addressed to believing audiences, these as well could have been intended for believing audiences. Either way you are left with the overwhelming majority of the NT being addressed to those who were already believers which would eliminate the idea the authors were targeting the unbeliever, and so there would have been no need in attempting to promote faith and fear, in order to convert folks.

MY POINT instead is to suggest that (the-powers-that-be), who later worked to comprise of what we now refer to as "the NT", put forth a collection of works to promote both (faith and fear).

Even if this were the case, (and I can tell you there was a whole lot more involved) you still have enough sense to figure out that this could not have been the purpose of the original authors, and in the end that is all that matters. I mean, you, yourself has determined that it would be illogical to prop up faith and fear to those who already believed, and yet that is exactly what we have. This is exactly what the NT contains. Most of the NT is simply letters Christians were writing among themselves. There is nothing in the NT one can point to and insist the target audience was the unbeliever. Think about that. There is nothing in the NT one can point to and insist the target was the unbeliever. However, one can indeed insist that the overwhelming majority of the NT was addressed to believing audiences at the time. Since this is the case, as you say, propping up faith and fear would be illogical if the target audience already believed. The author can talk about faith, and he can talk about fear, but if the audience already believed, the intent could not have been in order to win converts.

Why? Probably, in part, because the ones wanting to gain new converts knew full well that most are not going to have such said personal direct "Jesus experiences".

Listen! Anything that the Church was convinced was authored by an apostle was in. Therefore, the letters of Paul, Peter, John, and Jude. Matthew was in because it was believed to have been authored by Matthew who was an apostle, and the same with John. Mark is in because it is thought that Mark was the author, who was a companion of Peter. Luke gets in because it is believed that Luke was the author, and a traveling companion of Paul. James was the brother of Jesus, and Revelations was thought to be authored by the Apostle John. So, there you have it other than Hebrews, who we are not sure who the author was. The criteria had nothing to do with faith and fear, since the Church had no control over what these folks wrote. But again, none of this matters since it can be clearly demonstrated that the target audience was believers overwhelmingly, with nothing whatsoever being able to be pointed out as targeting the unbeliever.

Hence, it requires (faith) to believe these ancient claims from antiquity anyways.

I do not use faith at all in order to know there are facts, evidence, and reasons to believe the claims of the resurrection. 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 in order for the claims to be false and come away believing there are easy answers. If one comes away from such a study and is under the impression that it is all so simple, then either they really did not do the study, or they are easily convinced. To be clear, I am not insisting that everyone who does such a study will come away a convinced Christian, but they are certainly not going to come away believing there are simple answers.

At absolute best, you could argue Paul, (who is ultimately implicated in almost half of what is now comprised of the NT), did not intend to do this. And yet, you skipped the first verse I offered, via Hebrews 11.

I really did not skip the verse, but rather explained to you that I would get back to the rest, but I wanted to take the time to demonstrate Paul did not have in mind instructing the Corinthians to "walk by faith and not by sight".

The rest of "the NT" still promotes (faith a fear) throughout. Do you agree or disagree?

The problem here again is the fact that even if you take Paul out of the equation you are still left with the overwhelming majority of what is left being addressed to those who already believe, with nothing one can point to an insist the target audience was the unbeliever.

And I still welcome your input on the other thread. In a nutshell, I say "Luke" is a non-starter. when asserting 'facts and evidence' for anything other than it merely being a re-vamped/improved rendition of "Mark". What say-you here?

Okay, well I have no problem with the conclusions you come to as far as Luke is concerned. However, here are just a few things you cannot deny. There is no doubt we have evidence the author was a traveling companion of Paul. One piece of that evidence would be the fact the author begins to use the words "we" and "us" when describing the travels of Paul as if he is there to witness the events. In order to know this, I simply have to read the text. On the other hand, in order to believe the author was not a traveling companion of Paul, I would have to jump through all sorts of mental hoops in order to come to such a conclusion. In fact, most everyone would come to this conclusion, because not very many people at all would have come up with the idea that the author may have been using a literary device. But for some strange reason even those who would have never come up with such an idea, now are convinced this is the best explanation of the use of the words "we" and "us" by the author. At any rate, it really does not matter, because even though it may be a possibility a literary device may have been used, it has not in the least been demonstrated, which leaves us with the evidence the author traveled with Paul.

The next piece of evidence the author was a traveling companion of Paul is the fact the author of the letters addressed to Theophilus, ends his second letter with Paul being under arrest for some 2 years, and we know that there was more to the life of Paul after this. Now, why do you suppose the author would have ended this letter with Paul being under arrest, when we know there was more to the life of Paul? Could it possibly be the fact that the author is there with Paul at the time, and there is no more to report? In other words, Theophilus is now up to date, since at that time there would be no more for the author to report to Theophilus. Let us go on to think about the fact that if the author was there with Paul for the 2 years of this arrest, this would have given the author ample time to sit down in order to write out, not one, but two long and detailed letters addressed to Theophilus.

Now, let us go on to think about the fact that in one of the letters attributed to Paul, which is addressed to Timothy, keeping in mind that this letter is clearly authored while the author is under arrest, and the author just so happens to mention in passing, "only Luke is left with me". I'm just telling you the evidence is mounting up that the author of the letters addressed to Theophilus was a traveling companion of Paul, and that the author was Luke. But the thing is, we are not even finished yet, because the most damning evidence is about to come.

The author of the second letter addressed to Theophilus, begins this letter by describing the actions of the apostles in Jerusalem. However, for some strange reason, when Paul arrives on the scene, and begins his journeys, we only begin to hear of the actions of Paul, and we hear nothing whatsoever of the actions of the apostles in Jerusalem, until, or unless, Paul comes in contact with them. Can you imagine why this would be? Of course you can. If the author was traveling with Paul, he could not have possibly reported on the actions of the apostles in Jerusalem, if he was not there, and it just so happens this is exactly what we have. But believe it or not, we are not done yet.

The author of the letters addressed to Theophilus begins the first letter by assuring Theophilus that he had, "investigated everything from the beginning" as if he were alive to do such an investigation. But the thing is, the author does not simply say that he had "investigated everything from the beginning" as if he was alive to do such an investigation, he also goes on to say, "the things which have been accomplished among us" as if Theophilus would have been alive at the time of the events recorded.

One more thing I would like to bring up here as far as the author who addressed Theophilus is concerned. The author not only addresses Theophilus, but he also addresses this Theophilus as, "Most Excellent". The point I am making is; most anyone who would read these letters would consider the audience to be an individual. However, for some strange reason, there are those who want us to believe the author could not have possibly wrote out these two long and detailed letters addressed to one individual, and therefore the author must have used the meaning of the name Theophilus in order to address a wider audience. Again, most folks would have never come to such a conclusion on their own, but for some strange reason this becomes the best explanation for those who could have never thought of this on their own. The point is, for one to believe the author was addressing one individual, such a one would not have to do any sort of mental gymnastics. On the other hand, to convince oneself the author was targeting a wider audience, one would have to do all sorts of mental gymnastics.

To end here, I want to be clear in that I have no problem with the conclusions you come to as far as the contents of Luke, and Acts. The problem will come in when one wants to insist there would be no evidence in support of the author being a traveling companion of Paul, which would go on to be evidence the author was alive at the time of the events he records, along with evidence the author would have not only known Paul very well, but would have also known the original apostles, and would have heard the claims they were making from their very lips. It would also have to be acknowledged that for one to believe the author was a traveling companion of Paul, which would also mean the author would have known the original apostles, one would not have to do any sort of mental gymnastics in order to believe such a thing, while those opposed would certainly have to jump through all sorts of mental hoops in order to come to the conclusion the author was not alive at the time of the events he records.

[POI]

This is really good stuff, and I appreciate the conversation.

Then we are on the same page, because my point has been this would make no sense, since the overwhelming majority of what is contained in the NT can be demonstrated to have been addressed to those who already believed.

As i stated prior, yes and no. Allow me to explain this in a differing light... I'm going to steelman your position here. Any/all books written, which were later gathered to comprise of what we refer to as the 'NT' all were believers and wrote to fellow believers. This is where I state (yes).

However, the (no) also applies. For example, John 20:24-29 speaks about how Jesus apparently appeared to 'doubting Thomas'. And what exactly did Jesus tell Thomas in verse 29? --> 29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”. 'The Bible' is clearly telling the later reader that the ones who apply (faith > direct evidence) are preferred. The author here was likely aware that most ain't gonna have a direct "Jesus experience". Hence, the reader is told to apply faith. 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.

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.

The rest is addressed in post 89, to keep this relevant and organized -- (viewtopic.php?p=1160767#p1160767)