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]

...The OT author(s) also thought the earth is a round/flat disk, much like a round table....

No evidence for that.

Further, common knowledge of (plate techtonics) ...

The common "knowledge" is wrong, because it offers no viable force to make the changes.

You ARE deemed 'righteous' merely based upon if you possess 'Jesus-faith'. Period!

Person is deemed righteous, if he shows righteousness, has righteous actions. For example like in this:

For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without the law. As many as have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it isn't the hearers of the law who are righteous be-fore God, but the doers of the law will be justified for when Gen-tiles who don't have the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their con-science testifying with them, and their thoughts among them-selves accusing or else excusing them in the day when God will judge the secrets of men, according to my Gospel, by Jesus Christ.
Romans 2:12-16

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

The fire is called the torment. It burns = torments anything that is thrown into it. Things can burn (be tormented), even if they are not alive.

This goes right back to belief then. "Believe or burn." ...

But the reason for burning is not disbelief, but the evilness. Therefore, it is actually, don't be evil/unrighteous or burn.

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.

And you expect people to believe your baseless claims?

[POI]

No evidence for that.

Tell that to all the flat-earthers. All kidding aside, for starters, check out Matt. 4:8 - "8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.".

Clearly, this author thought all the nations of the world could be seen by simply going up higher. This would be nonsensical when attempting to see all the kingdoms, where some reside on the opposite side of the spherical planet. I'll let you marinate on this one before I present more.

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

But yea, what you claim to be prophetic, is all VAGUE. Hence, you get to navigate your desired apologetic conclusion to taste.

The common "knowledge" is wrong, because it offers no viable force to make the changes.

I will await your Nobel prize for debunking plate techtonics. All you offer here is science denial, with nothing to back it up.

Person is deemed righteous, if he shows righteousness, has righteous actions.

Romans 3:21-26 is very clear. Jesus-faith=righteousness. They are completely interchangeable.

The fire is called the torment. It burns = torments anything that is thrown into it. Things can burn (be tormented), even if they are not alive.

Negative. You are offering up 'apologetics spin' to make things 'fit'. (i.e.):

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blog ... t-in-hell/

It is clear that some authors introduce the concept of eternal torment or conscious eternal torment, or 'hell', for the "unchosen".

But the reason for burning is not disbelief, but the evilness. Therefore, it is actually, don't be evil/unrighteous or burn.

According to Romans 3, (Jesus-faith) is what deems one (righteous). They are one-in-the-same. I already explained here. We are all 'sinners', believer or not. The only difference is if you believe or not. A believer, who lies, is a sinner. Just like the unbeliever, who lies, is still the same sin.

And you expect people to believe your baseless claims?

My claim is NOT baseless. Why? Pascal's Wager is an argument. The entire argument is based upon promoting blind faith to avoid eternal punishment. Such an argument would not exist, if blind faith was not promoted, as well as the fear of eternal conscious torment.

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

Bottom line is this, NT writers wanted converts. To do so, they pushed blind faith, because they knew the evidence was lacking. They also pushed eternal conscious torment. Hence, the existence of Pascal's Wager.

[TRANSPONDER]

My god, yes. This is where science - denial comes in and, and yet again does the apologist not know how the theory of plate tectonics works, or is it simple denial of it because it is inconvenient? See also that evolution - deniers do not know what the theory is; they merely repeat stock objection and denial. It is...and you may take this to the bank for understanding the Bible - apologist mindset...batting away any Questioning of Bible truth and you start doing that, you start doubting the faith. Godfaith is the basis of ALL theist apologetics, no matter how they may dress it up in scientific or philosophical jargon, and NOT understanding the arguments and not wanting to is the basis of the apologetics mindset, and you may bet on that as sure as the Passover release custom never existed.

I often ask this 'ignorance or denial?' Good question, and yet I think I know the answer - They know they are right on Faith, and mere evidence is irrelevant even if it's true, and is better ignored, denied or dismissed because it questions what is known true on Faith.

That is how it works, and you can bet on that to win the next election.

Oh it's fascinating, the theist mindset. You may ask; 'How can they deny what is reliable knowledge and not even understand what the knowledge says, or care that their arguments are unsound?' Easy; 'science is always changing its' mind' and that good old one 'What information would persuade you..?' or the belief that one day new evidence will make the earth flat and only 6,000 years old and humans rode on dinosaurs. This is why science information doesn't matter - unless it can be twisted to support the faithclaim And Fossil fuel commerce picked up on that to start a climate - change denial cult, which became politicised and I'll stop there.

But point is, this explains the clue not usually understood even if noticed - science is mere human opinion - if it doesn't support the faith, while Believers just Lurrrve science - if it can be twisted to fit the faith, then it becomes Gospel truth even if they got it wrong.

And you may compare that with maga doctrine, they are eating dogs and cats is gospel truth, even if totally debunked. It is the faithbased and denialist mindset and is exploited by the greedy, the power - hungry and the politically dangerous.

[Difflugia]

...The OT author(s) also thought the earth is a round/flat disk, much like a round table....

No evidence for that.

There is pretty conclusive evidence for that and unsurprisingly, you could know this by checking Wikipedia.

Further, common knowledge of (plate techtonics) ...

The common "knowledge" is wrong, because it offers no viable force to make the changes.

Wikipedia again.

The fire is called the torment. It burns = torments anything that is thrown into it. Things can burn (be tormented), even if they are not alive.

That's not what "torment" (βασανίζω, "to torture") means. It's from the word for a touchstone, which was used to test gold (it's harder than gold, but softer than brass or pyrite). It doesn't mean "to destroy" or "to burn," even metaphorically, but could metaphorically refer to the conscious pain from such. It's more akin to the medieval euphemism for torture, putting someone "to the question." The metaphorical use throughout the New Testament is referring to pain or distress as terrible as what might be inflicted by a torturer inflicting pain to extract information.

And you expect people to believe your baseless claims?

QFT

[TRANSPONDER]

...The OT author(s) also thought the earth is a round/flat disk, much like a round table....

No evidence for that.

There is pretty conclusive evidence for that and unsurprisingly, you could know this by checking Wikipedia.

Further, common knowledge of (plate techtonics) ...

The common "knowledge" is wrong, because it offers no viable force to make the changes.

Wikipedia again.

The fire is called the torment. It burns = torments anything that is thrown into it. Things can burn (be tormented), even if they are not alive.

That's not what "torment" (βασανίζω, "to torture") means. It's from the word for a touchstone, which was used to test gold (it's harder than gold, but softer than brass or pyrite). It doesn't mean "to destroy" or "to burn," even metaphorically, but could metaphorically refer to the conscious pain from such. It's more akin to the medieval euphemism for torture, putting someone "to the question." The metaphorical use throughout the New Testament is referring to pain or distress as terrible as what might be inflicted by a torturer inflicting pain to extract information.

And you expect people to believe your baseless claims?

QFT

There actually is. Not only that the Babylonians and Egyptians and everyone else thought that, but you yourself, 1213, apparently accepted that the Hebrew for 'circle' comes out as a flat circle as scribed by a compass (1) but you tried to excuse it by having it scribed on a round earth, which is what there is no good
support in the Bible. You hoped to get this past us, 1213, by suggesting the Pacific ring (the volcanically active locations around the pacific) was the ;circle of the earth' which hardly fits with(Job I recall) God looking down at the circle of humans runnib ng about like ants, when this pacific ring is mostly water.

But we all know, it was never about a better hypothesis, but just any excuse to avoid or deny the conclusion that the Bible had got something wrong.

As regards 'torment, ' it looks like going beyond any excuse apologetics and approaching 'sauce' or wind up an atheist for Jesus. I think I get it as the bottom line is to refuse to be convinced by the atheist side, even if the Bible apologetics don't work Deny everything and you can't lose. Just ask Trump's team of lawyers.

"Atheist Axiom no. 6 " To the Bible - apologist a draw is a win". - e g 'My theory is as good as yours", which is why the preferred hypothesis doesn't seem to matter, but that nothing can be 100% disproven. It is (though they will deny it) about a preferred belief that can be clung to by excuses, denial and fingers in the ears and not the theory that on evidence, fits better.

The point (which I'd almost forgotten, ) is that torment has to be more than chucking an empty tin or old plastic toy in the fire to see it buckle up - the context is a punishment that the evildoer feels or it is no deterrent at all' After I'm dead, you can torment my body as much as you like and it won't bother me a bit. It seems perverse if not evasive to overlook that this is supposed to be a warning and deterrent against...whatever Beef the Bible has got on its' mind at the time.

(1) Hebrew experts to the rescue but I worked out that 'Chwug' (randomly pronounced it seems) is used to describe a pair of compasses as Meshugginah or some such word.

[POI]

...The OT author(s) also thought the earth is a round/flat disk, much like a round table....

No evidence for that.

There is pretty conclusive evidence for that and unsurprisingly, you could know this by checking Wikipedia.

Further, common knowledge of (plate techtonics) ...

The common "knowledge" is wrong, because it offers no viable force to make the changes.

Wikipedia again.

The fire is called the torment. It burns = torments anything that is thrown into it. Things can burn (be tormented), even if they are not alive.

That's not what "torment" (βασανίζω, "to torture") means. It's from the word for a touchstone, which was used to test gold (it's harder than gold, but softer than brass or pyrite). It doesn't mean "to destroy" or "to burn," even metaphorically, but could metaphorically refer to the conscious pain from such. It's more akin to the medieval euphemism for torture, putting someone "to the question." The metaphorical use throughout the New Testament is referring to pain or distress as terrible as what might be inflicted by a torturer inflicting pain to extract information.

And you expect people to believe your baseless claims?

QFT

The enemy here is cognitive dissonance. Most/all of us carry cognitive dissonance with at least one topic or more. Maybe some of us compartmentalize, or apply a special set of 'logic' tools for one topic or more. For example, I may do so for the political party I'm going to vote for, or to continue justifying eating meat, or to always defend my spouse. It's clear 1213 harbors a soft spot for the Bible. Hence, he will protect it at all costs.

[Difflugia]

The enemy here is cognitive dissonance. Most/all of us carry cognitive dissonance with at least one topic or more. Maybe some of us compartmentalize, or apply a special set of 'logic' tools for one topic or more. For example, I may do so for the political party I'm going to vote for, or to continue justifying eating meat, or to always defend my spouse. It's clear 1213 harbors a soft spot for the Bible. Hence, he will protect it at all costs.

I totally agree, except that the soft spot isn't for the Bible itself, but a particular, flawed exegetical method.

[1213]

No evidence for that.

Tell that to all the flat-earthers. All kidding aside, for starters, check out Matt. 4:8 - "8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.".

Clearly, this author thought all the nations of the world could be seen by simply going up higher. This would be nonsensical when attempting to see all the kingdoms, where some reside on the opposite side of the spherical planet. I'll let you marinate on this one before I present more.

Even if you were on a high mountain, you would not probably see any splendor in the way you see things with your eyes. For example if you would be on the top of Mount Everest, do you think you would see the splendor of China? That is why I don't think the Matt. 4:8 tells anything about the form of planet earth.

I think the story implicates that those things were shown like in a vision. Not like television, which obviously is supernatural and not possible. But, it could be for example like this:
"Look, in that direction there is the kingdom of America, it is very rich and has lot of gold, you can get it, if you worship me". That would count as showing the kingdom and its splendor, it doesn't require that you see with your eyes all those things like you would see the things that are in front of you.

I will await your Nobel prize for debunking plate techtonics. All you offer here is science denial, with nothing to back it up.

The real problem is that the theory has no credible force to cause the effect it allegedly has.

Romans 3:21-26 is very clear. Jesus-faith=righteousness. They are completely interchangeable.

That is almost funny. Romans 3:21-26 doesn't say faith=righteousness, as everyone can see, if reads the text:

But now apart from the law, a righteousness of God has been revealed, being testified by the law and the prophets; even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ to all and on all those who believe. For there is no distinction, for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God; being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; whom God set forth to be an atoning sacrifice{or, a propitiation}, through faith in his blood, for a demonstration of his righteousness through the passing over of prior sins, in God's forbearance; to demonstrate his righteousness at this present time; that he might himself be just, and the justifier of him who has faith in Jesus.
Romans 3:21-26

My claim is NOT baseless. Why? Pascal's Wager is an argument. The entire argument is based upon promoting blind faith to avoid eternal punishment. Such an argument would not exist, if blind faith was not promoted, as well as the fear of eternal conscious torment.

Why could it not exist, if if blind faith was not promoted?

Pascal's Wager was invented about 1600-1700, Christianity existed long before that. So, if some people invented it to scare people to believe, it is much later addition, and not necessary for Christianity, nor what the Bible teaches.

But, obviously everyone can think for themselves, the Pascal's Wager is just common sense, it is usually wise to choose something that has no risk, but can be beneficial. However, Bible promises eternal life for righteous only. therefore it is not useful to pretend to be something that one is not.

[1213]

There is pretty conclusive evidence for that and unsurprisingly, you could know this by checking Wikipedia.

Shows only how some modern people think it was. No real information how the ancient people understood it.

Further, common knowledge of (plate techtonics) ...

The common "knowledge" is wrong, because it offers no viable force to make the changes.

Wikipedia again.

Sorry, that shows only lack of understanding of the forces needed.

The fire is called the torment. It burns = torments anything that is thrown into it. Things can burn (be tormented), even if they are not alive.

That's not what "torment" (βασανίζω, "to torture") means. ...

In Bible the eternal fire lake (=hell) is called the torment. So, in Biblical point of view, torment means fire that burns. And because eternal life is promised only for righteous. and the hell is a place where soul and body are destroyed, I think it is not reasonable to say that the torment in the Bible means conscious eternal suffering for the ones who end up in it.

These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
Matt. 25:46
Don’t be afraid of those who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul. Rather, fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna [hell].
Matt. 10:28

[POI]

Even if you were on a high mountain, you would not probably see any splendor in the way you see things with your eyes. For example if you would be on the top of Mount Everest, do you think you would see the splendor of China? That is why I don't think the Matt. 4:8 tells anything about the form of planet earth.

I think the story implicates that those things were shown like in a vision. Not like television, which obviously is supernatural and not possible. But, it could be for example like this:
"Look, in that direction there is the kingdom of America, it is very rich and has lot of gold, you can get it, if you worship me". That would count as showing the kingdom and its splendor, it doesn't require that you see with your eyes all those things like you would see the things that are in front of you.

You are avoiding the obvious. The author states they need to go higher, to see all nations. If the author knew the earth was spherical, they obviously would not have made such a nonsensical statement. But thank you for your 'apologetics' here. We all appreciate it.

The real problem is that the theory has no credible force to cause the effect it allegedly has.

No, the real problem is that you offer nothing but a baseless opinion, filled with nothing but science-denial. Plate techtonics is well established. But I'm not here to give you a remedial junior high school science lesson. So, by all means, deny away....

That is almost funny. Romans 3:21-26 doesn't say faith=righteousness, as everyone can see, if reads the text:

But now apart from the law, a righteousness of God has been revealed, being testified by the law and the prophets; even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ to all and on all those who believe. For there is no distinction, for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God; being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; whom God set forth to be an atoning sacrifice{or, a propitiation}, through faith in his blood, for a demonstration of his righteousness through the passing over of prior sins, in God's forbearance; to demonstrate his righteousness at this present time; that he might himself be just, and the justifier of him who has faith in Jesus.
Romans 3:21-26

It's clear, you are deemed 'righteous' by having 'Jesus-faith'. You cannot obtain 'righteousness' any other way. It's 'Jesus-faith', and nothing more.

Why could it not exist, if if blind faith was not promoted?

Many, who proselytize the Bible, use Pascal's Wager. These folks understand, as well as some of the NT writers understood, that evidence is severely lacking. Most, if not all, are not going to have such said wild asserted direct experiences with a Jesus. The only 'evidence' to such stories, are placed forth by decades of oral tradition, followed by later anonymous writings of these tales. Hence, the need to prop up blind-faith, propelled by fear of eternal torment.

Pascal's Wager was invented about 1600-1700, Christianity existed long before that. So, if some people invented it to scare people to believe, it is much later addition, and not necessary for Christianity, nor what the Bible teaches.

Sure, "Pascal's Wager" was the later official coined term. But it was not a new argument. Especially if you argue that it is just "common sense".

But, obviously everyone can think for themselves, the Pascal's Wager is just common sense, it is usually wise to choose something that has no risk, but can be beneficial. However, Bible promises eternal life for righteous only. therefore it is not useful to pretend to be something that one is not.

My point here is that such an argument would not be placed forth if actual evidence was there to instead convince you that it is real. Hence, the reason NT writers propped up blind-faith and fear of 'hell'.