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?

[1213]

I think the existence of life and the Bible are good reasons to believe.

By using your logic, ANY proposed god or gods can be believed to be real.

By my logic, what I said is not all about thins matter. Only the reasons that leads to the idea of a creator. I believe Bible God is the creator, because He shows knowledge and understanding no one else shows.

I disagree. The following receipts attest to believing in him without evidence. Even though you cannot see him, you must still have faith he is there. (i.e.):

2 Corinthians 5:7 - For we walk by faith, not by sight.
Hebrews 11:1 - Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

I think the Bible writers knew the evidence is lacking. Hence, to raise converts, the invention of faith was placed forward. Which is why skeptics are always presented with the argument of Pascal's Wager by believers. If the Bible God's existence was this obvious, Pascal's Wager would not exist as an argument to be presented

I think your problem is that you cherry pick lines and then twist them to your purposes. To understand what faith means, one should take everything Bible says about it.

Nope. It means having faith despite not being able to detect him.

Why do you think you are the authority in this case to tell how it really is? I think it is ridiculous when atheists preach like they are the ones who decide what is the correct faith and belief.

[POI]

I believe Bible God is the creator, because He shows knowledge and understanding no one else shows.

But we've been all over this already. Name one thing in the Bible, in which humans could not have come up with all on their own accord?

I think your problem is that you cherry pick lines and then twist them to your purposes. To understand what faith means, one should take everything Bible says about it.

Then please explain why so many theists use Pascal's Wager? These folks already acknowledge that God's evidence is lacking, to say the least.

The Bible also 'rewards' the ones who have 'faith' without seeing, over and above the ones who do not. (I.E.) Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed” (John 20:29).

Why do you think you are the authority in this case to tell how it really is? I think it is ridiculous when atheists preach like they are the ones who decide what is the correct faith and belief.

I have receipts. Many of them. My point is the evidence suggests the NT authors were aware that the provided evidence, for an invisible Jesus is scanty, at best. Hence, the reason the Bible writers set out to 'reward' those who have "faith", or blind trust/hope in the unseen and undetected. There is also the story of 'doubting Thomas'. The Bible demonstrates that many cannot believe without fully detecting him. And since Jesus isn't going to prove himself to most/all, like he 'apparently did with 'Thomas', 'blind faith' is rewarded above all else.

[TRANSPONDER]

I think the existence of life and the Bible are good reasons to believe.

By using your logic, ANY proposed god or gods can be believed to be real.

By my logic, what I said is not all about thins matter. Only the reasons that leads to the idea of a creator. I believe Bible God is the creator, because He shows knowledge and understanding no one else shows.

I disagree. The following receipts attest to believing in him without evidence. Even though you cannot see him, you must still have faith he is there. (i.e.):

2 Corinthians 5:7 - For we walk by faith, not by sight.
Hebrews 11:1 - Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

I think the Bible writers knew the evidence is lacking. Hence, to raise converts, the invention of faith was placed forward. Which is why skeptics are always presented with the argument of Pascal's Wager by believers. If the Bible God's existence was this obvious, Pascal's Wager would not exist as an argument to be presented

I think your problem is that you cherry pick lines and then twist them to your purposes. To understand what faith means, one should take everything Bible says about it.

Nope. It means having faith despite not being able to detect him.

Why do you think you are the authority in this case to tell how it really is? I think it is ridiculous when atheists preach like they are the ones who decide what is the correct faith and belief.

You've got a sauce accusing others of twisting Bible text to ones' purpose. We at least don't deny the Bible actually says stuff or rearrange it to mean something else. And yes, by anyone's logic, any god Holy Book or religion could be real.

The 'authority' to make any pronouncement about your fallacious claims or illogical conclusions is based on logic and rational treatment of data. If you reject that, then you have opted for irrationality over reason and evidence, and in fact that is not at all uncommon with Bible - apologists.

[1213]

I believe Bible God is the creator, because He shows knowledge and understanding no one else shows.

...Name one thing in the Bible, in which humans could not have come up with all on their own accord?

One example of knowledge no one else shows is for example that Jews would be scattered and much later gathered back, as it is nowadays happening.

I will scatter you among the nations, and I will draw out the sword after you: and your land will be a desolation, and your cities shall be a waste.
Lev. 26:33
It shall happen, when all these things are come on you, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before you, and you shall call them to mind among all the nations, where Yahweh your God has driven you, and shall return to Yahweh your God, and shall obey his voice according to all that I command you this day, you and your children, with all your heart, and with all your soul; that then Yahweh your God will turn your captivity, and have compassion on you, and will return and gather you from all the peoples, where Yahweh your God has scattered you. If [any of] your outcasts are in the uttermost parts of the heavens, from there will Yahweh your God gather you, and from there will he bring you back:
Deut. 30:1-4

Then please explain why so many theists use Pascal's Wager? ...

You should ask that from them. I think it is not useful, because the important thing is not to believe, but to be righteous. Eternal life is promised only for righteous. If you say you believe God is real because then you don't lose anything, it does not necessary mean you are righteous.

The Bible also 'rewards' the ones who have 'faith' without seeing, over and above the ones who do not. (I.E.) Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed” (John 20:29).

Good to notice how differently Bible uses the word belief and faith.

set out to 'reward' those who have "faith", or blind trust/hope in the unseen and undetected. There is also the story of 'doubting Thomas'. The Bible demonstrates that many cannot believe without fully detecting him. And since Jesus isn't going to prove himself to most/all, like he 'apparently did with 'Thomas', 'blind faith' is rewarded above all else.

I don't think proving the existence of Jesus is useful. Or what say you, if the existence of Jesus would be proven absolutely without any doubt to you, would you then become righteous? If not, then it is not useful.

[POI]

One example of knowledge no one else shows is for example that Jews would be scattered and much later gathered back, as it is nowadays happening.

Human beings alone make predictions all the time. Some come true, some do not. It's called excepting the hits and ignoring the misses. And in the case(s) you are bringing forth, the assertion is also quite vague. Much like going to a palm reader, or visiting your local psychic, or even reading the Quatrains of Nostradamus. A 'prediction' is made, without much of any detail(s). It would be like me writing a book and simply stating that the middle east will go to war. If it hasn't happened yet, it means it has not come to pass yet. If it later happens, I can say, 'see, I told you so.'. And yet. without me offering much of any details, like the Bible does not, then you will quickly see how such 'prediction(s)' are basically useless. The prophetic offerings of the Bible are vague. Much like the local palm reader, where you pay a few bucks on your local street corner, to get your next 'reading.' Sorry, do you have anything else to offer which might actually demonstrate that the Bible presents something for which humans could not produce all on their own?

You should ask that from them. I think it is not useful, because the important thing is not to believe, but to be righteous. Eternal life is promised only for righteous. If you say you believe God is real because then you don't lose anything, it does not necessary mean you are righteous.

As I've told you repeatedly, 'righteousness' and 'faith' are interchangeable, via Romans 3. You are deemed 'righteous' simply by having 'faith' in Jesus. Romans 3 states you cannot become 'righteous.' Only Jesus is righteous. Hence, your "faith" in Jesus is what provides the loophole to be granted access to 'Heaven' anyways, since you cannot earn God's favor by any other human deeds besides 'faith'. (i.e.):

"Righteousness Through Faith

21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 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."

*********************************************

This is why the apologetic of Pascal's Wager exists. Many realize proof for an invisible Jesus is lacking, to say the least. Hence, to have blind faith, just in case. The mere existence of this argument is the telling tale. I reckon you've heard of this argument, right?

Good to notice how differently Bible uses the word belief and faith.

They are the same, when you read the context. Jesus is rewarding those who have <blind belief (or) blind faith> over and above ones who receive evidence and then believe. Hence, the Bible is telling readers that if you do not receive evidence, and still believe, or still have blind faith, you are rewarded more-so. This becomes one shining example of why I brought up this topic. The NT writers were aware that Jesus likely ain't gonna give you any evidence. Hence, the NT rewards blind faith/belief (i.e.):

"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 Purpose of John’s Gospel

30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."

I don't think proving the existence of Jesus is useful. Or what say you, if the existence of Jesus would be proven absolutely without any doubt to you, would you then become righteous? If not, then it is not useful.

Which is why the NT writers polarize or elevate blind faith. The NT writers are aware that most aren't going to be convinced by any hard evidence. This is because there isn't any. There are instead some old stories, spread by decades of oral traditions. But if the authors wanted to sell this religion, and propagate it's indoctrination, they knew they needed some kind of a hook to still get converts. So present Pascal's Wager, and reinforce it by way of fear, via coercion. (i.e.) -- "Believe or else". This is why the NT also introduces the concept of "eternal torment." Instill fear to bring many over.

[1213]

One example of knowledge no one else shows is for example that Jews would be scattered and much later gathered back, as it is nowadays happening.

Human beings alone make predictions all the time. Some come true, some do not. It's called excepting the hits and ignoring the misses. And in the case(s) you are bringing forth, the assertion is also quite vague. Much like going to a palm reader, or visiting your local psychic, or even reading the Quatrains of Nostradamus. A 'prediction' is made, without much of any detail(s). It would be like me writing a book and simply stating that the middle east will go to war. If it hasn't happened yet, it means it has not come to pass yet. If it later happens, I can say, 'see, I told you so.'. And yet. without me offering much of any details, like the Bible does not, then you will quickly see how such 'prediction(s)' are basically useless. The prophetic offerings of the Bible are vague. Much like the local palm reader, where you pay a few bucks on your local street corner, to get your next 'reading.' Sorry, do you have anything else to offer which might actually demonstrate that the Bible presents something for which humans could not produce all on their own?

I don't think it is vague and I think no one else shows similar knowledge. Other example would be for example the Biblical explanation for why earth looks what it looks now, the idea of single continent in the beginning and its collapse to modern continents during the great flood event.

As I've told you repeatedly, 'righteousness' and 'faith' are interchangeable....
....
"Righteousness Through Faith

21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 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."

When Bible says "righteousness is given through faith", if the words would be interchangeable, it could be said "righteousness is given through righteousness". It is nonsensical, therefore I think your are wrong with your claim that 'righteousness' and 'faith' are interchangeable. Obviously they are not.

Faithfulness is like a fruit of a tree, it tells what kind of tree one is. If person shows faith, it tells person is righteous. And I think faith means faithfulness/loyalty to God.

Good to notice how differently Bible uses the word belief and faith.

They are the same, when you read the context. Jesus is rewarding those who have <blind belief (or) blind faith> over and above ones who receive evidence and then believe. Hence, the Bible is telling readers that if you do not receive evidence, and still believe, or still have blind faith, you are rewarded more-so. This becomes one shining example of why I brought up this topic. The NT writers were aware that Jesus likely ain't gonna give you any evidence. Hence, the NT rewards blind faith/belief (i.e.):

"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 Purpose of John’s Gospel

30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."

If faith = believe, why Bible uses the word believe in those? I think it is because they are not the same.

....This is why the NT also introduces the concept of "eternal torment." Instill fear to bring many over.

You really expect people to believe blindly your claims?

[POI]

I don't think it is vague and I think no one else shows similar knowledge.

This is another one of your "nuh-uh" responses. Nothing more. Stating "a populous will scatter", with virtually no specifics, is as vague as any palm reader's claims. It's exactly what you'd expect from individuals who cannot really see the future at all. Biblical prophecy is not specific. Just like the claims from so-called psychics, claimed mediums, or the like, cannot really give you anything concrete or specific either.

Other example would be for example the Biblical explanation for why earth looks what it looks now, the idea of single continent in the beginning and its collapse to modern continents during the great flood event.

Please produce the exact verse(s) you are speaking about?

When Bible says "righteousness is given through faith", if the words would be interchangeable, it could be said "righteousness is given through righteousness". It is nonsensical, therefore I think your are wrong with your claim that 'righteousness' and 'faith' are interchangeable. Obviously they are not.

The title of the verses states "righteousness through faith.". One's "righteousness" is deemed solely by one's faith in Jesus. "Righteousness" is deemed as the faithful, in this case. What this means is a "righteous" human equals a "faithful" human. So, yes, they are interchangeable.

Good to notice how differently Bible uses the word belief and faith.

It does not matter what you think. It is what you can 1) demonstrate or 2) prove. You have done neither. I have. Your continued production of "nuh-uh" responses will not persuade anyone.

You really expect people to believe blindly your claims?

Are you saying the NT does not introduce the concept of "eternal torment?". Here is only a couple of examples:

Matthew 25:46: “And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.”

Revelation 14:11: “And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night.

************************************

I also have receipts, regarding demonstrated coercion. Here is just one example. Mark 16 reads:

"15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."

The author is telling the reader that unbelievers will be "condemned." This is coercion.

Coercion: "the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats."

*************************************

Further, I have asked you twice now, but you continue to dodge the obvious. If the emphasis on blind faith to avoid torment is not placed forth by the NT writers, then why the heck do so many theists pose the Pasal's Wager argument to skeptics?

[1213]

Other example would be for example the Biblical explanation for why earth looks what it looks now, the idea of single continent in the beginning and its collapse to modern continents during the great flood event.

Please produce the exact verse(s) you are speaking about?

In the beginning planet was covered with water, until God drew a circle around it and stretched the dry land (dry land means earth) over part of it = The original single continent.
Now the earth was formless and empty. Darkness was on the surface of the deep. God's Spirit was hovering over the surface of the waters.
Gen. 1:2
While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, Nor the beginning of the dust of the world. When he established the heavens, I was there; When he set a circle on the surface of the deep,
Prov. 8:26-27
God said, "Let the waters under the sky be gathered together to one place, and let the dry land appear," and it was so. God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters he called Seas. God saw that it was good.
Gen. 1:9-10
To him who spread out the earth above the waters; For his loving kindness endures forever:
Ps. 136:6

When the flood came, it was because the original continent was broken and sunk to the water that was below it.

In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day all the fountains of the great deep were burst open, and the sky's windows were opened. The rain was on the earth forty days and forty nights.
Gen. 7:11-12

The result of that are the modern continents.

The title of the verses states "righteousness through faith.". One's "righteousness" is deemed solely by one's faith in Jesus. "Righteousness" is deemed as the faithful, in this case. What this means is a "righteous" human equals a "faithful" human. So, yes, they are interchangeable.

Sorry, you are wrong. But, the true part is, if person is faithful, it shows righteousness (wisdom of the just) and therefore the person can be counted righteous.

Are you saying the NT does not introduce the concept of "eternal torment?". Here is only a couple of examples:

Matthew 25:46: “And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.”

Revelation 14:11: “And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night.

Yes, Bible tells there is an eternal fire that is also called eternal torment. Doesn't mean people are alive there, because eternal life is promised only for righteous.

I also have receipts, regarding demonstrated coercion. Here is just one example. Mark 16 reads:

"15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."

The author is telling the reader that unbelievers will be "condemned." This is coercion.

Coercion: "the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats."

I think it is good to understand, they are not condemned because of their lack of belief, but because of their evilness.

He who believes in him is not judged. He who doesn't believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the one and only Son of God. This is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their works were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the light, and doesn't come to the light, lest his works would be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his works may be revealed, that they have been done in God."
John 3:18-21

Further, I have asked you twice now, but you continue to dodge the obvious. If the emphasis on blind faith to avoid torment is not placed forth by the NT writers, then why the heck do so many theists pose the Pasal's Wager argument to skeptics?

I may read people's faces, but I don't really read people's minds. If you want to know why someone does that, you should ask it from him.

By what I see, blind faith is not requirement in the Bible. And again, I think Noah is a very good example of what is meant with faith in the Bible. Noah got the message about the great flood and did the ark, although didn't see the flood yet. Did he have blind faith in God that things will go as He said? Obviously Noah trusted that the message is true. But in this case I think he had a good reason for it, which is why I think it was not blind.

[TRANSPONDER]

That 'prophecy' in Leviticus is rather cherry picked. God promises to look after the Jews if they keep his laws, but if not, he will punish them in increasing acts of severity and at last 'send them amongst their enemies'. Which is a threat they understood even if Levitcus was written in the 6th c B.C (the silver scroll showing that the books of law were known in some form at that date), and even if earlier, they knew what the Assyrians had done to Israel, which the Jewish writers seemed to regard as being to rather lax in keeping God's laws.

If written, or revised during the exile, it is no more than retrospective history and explaining why God apparently forsook them. and at the same time using that as a way of increasing religious control 'You were hit by disasters because you didn't pray enough'.

The fulfillment of the Jews getting back together is a favorite prophecy come true. there are three rejoinders to that:

The Jews have always had this wish to return to their land of origin. When given the opportunity with the Balfour declaration, it was a self-fulfilling prophecy

Balfour himself (so I read) was conscious of fulfilling this very prophecy when he did it.

Even if it is a true prophecy, it only proves that Judaism was correct and God was looking after the Jews, even after Jesus had been rejected by them.

So if that prophecy is right, the claims for Jesus are wrong.

[POI]

When the flood came, it was because the original continent was broken and sunk to the water that was below it.... The result of that are the modern continents.

These cherry-picked verses are vague. Which is why you are doing what you are doing. Remember when I informed you about (accepting the hits and ignoring the misses)? Your response is a prime example. The OT author(s) also thought the earth is a round/flat disk, much like a round table.... You are cherry-picking the parts for which you can try and shoehorn into the given demonstrated scientific explanation.

Further, common knowledge of (plate techtonics) dispels the notion that the continents were separated by some "grand flood" event.

Sorry, you are wrong. But, the true part is, if person is faithful, it shows righteousness (wisdom of the just) and therefore the person can be counted righteous.

This response gave me a chuckle... You tell me I'm wrong, while you agree with me. (Righteousness = Jesus-faith), pure and simple. So yes, the two terms are 100% interchangeable. You ARE deemed 'righteous' merely based upon if you possess 'Jesus-faith'. Period!

Yes, Bible tells there is an eternal fire that is also called eternal torment. Doesn't mean people are alive there

Then please logically explain how one torments something that is truly dead, or without consciousness?

I think it is good to understand, they are not condemned because of their lack of belief, but because of their evilness.

He who believes in him is not judged. He who doesn't believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the one and only Son of God. This is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their works were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the light, and doesn't come to the light, lest his works would be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his works may be revealed, that they have been done in God."
John 3:18-21

This goes right back to belief then. "Believe or burn." This is classic coercion. You will continue 'sin', whether you are a believer or not. And I reckon there exists no such thing as a good 'sin' A believer who lies, commits theft, etc, is no different than an unbeliever who does the same. The differentiating factor is belief alone. Lies and theft are still lies and theft to the Bible-god either way.

To win converts, the NT writers propped up both a) blind Jesus-faith, as well as b) coaxing one into believing by fear.

I may read people's faces, but I don't really read people's minds. If you want to know why someone does that, you should ask it from him.

By what I see, blind faith is not requirement in the Bible. And again, I think Noah is a very good example of what is meant with faith in the Bible. Noah got the message about the great flood and did the ark, although didn't see the flood yet. Did he have blind faith in God that things will go as He said? Obviously Noah trusted that the message is true. But in this case I think he had a good reason for it, which is why I think it was not blind.

As I've stated twice now, the mere existence of the (Pascal's Wager) argument is a testament to the need for blind faith. The writers in the Bible are placing forth stories, from oral traditions, which happened before their time. The NT authors know most, if not all, are not going to have any of these wild experiences in which the said characters in the Bible are said to have. Hence, to prop up new converts, they found it necessary to both a) assert blind faith, and b) re-enforce this blind faith by way of fear.