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?

[bjs1]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

This does not appear to be the definition of faith used in the NT. So the answer to the question in this thread is, “No.”

Anyone is free to define faith however they want for threads they create. However, if the New Testament writers did not use that definition then we will not be able to draw any accurate conclusions about the New Testament.

[TRANSPONDER]

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?

I think not. Faith is a basic, not only of religion, but society. it is a human instinct to believe what we are taught, and it takes a bit of work to learn Not to do conclusions on Faith but on evidence.

Rather the human instinct is to take any other view or belief as wrong, foolish and ill - informed at best, and a personal insult, offence and dangerous at worst. This is human instinct in society that hardly seems understood, never mind not addressed.

Howev. the point is that the gospels were written by men (probably) of Faith. And I have asked myself how they could sit there and write deliberate fabrications. I am actually familiar with making stuff up - at first as a plausible theory and then as a matter of belief. I may still be doing it with 'Jesus = barrabbas...but I would argue the evidence there.

I think it is a question of: . "Hey; what do a few untruths matter if some souls are saved?" They see a problem; let's take John's problem, Jesus ought to have been born in Bethlehem, but (so far as John knows) he wasn't. He writes Jesus bawling out the crowd who put the point to him

But Matthew and Luke Corrected the omission by making up a mechanism to wangle Jesus into being born in Bethlehem. And of course they utterly contradict. There is no way these are reliable stories, so how could men of faith make stuff up?

For the same reason we see Bible apologists here just make stuff up and deny evidence, even if it's there in the Bible. Faith is everything and mere evidence
- even what is said in the Bible (e'g slavery) is nothing, and all epistemology, data and fact should be dismissed in Favor or even favour of Faith, because Faith is the first and last resort of Religion, religious apologetics and religious motivation.

And i have no doubt it was just the same with the writers of the gospels.

[1213]

...I cannot simply chose to believe...

Please tell, who is preventing you to do so?

...the NT expresses the need to follow a certain 'moral' code....

Please tell what scripture you mean?

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)?

Bible is not contradictory, or illogical, if you understand it correctly.

[TRANSPONDER]

...I cannot simply chose to believe...

Please tell, who is preventing you to do so?

...the NT expresses the need to follow a certain 'moral' code....

Please tell what scripture you mean?

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)?

Bible is not contradictory, or illogical, if you understand it correctly.

That is pure denial. In fact it translates as 'Contradictions can be waved away, if you read it with Faith'.

Or one should say faithbased denial. Which We (yall- here) have seen you do with everything from the daylight made before the sun, slavery in the Bible and the Resurrection contradictions, which you (honestly..look the word up) ought to admit you saw and understood, as you tried to explain them away with the 'Marys split up' argument, and even trying to reassemble the filletted gospel to make it work.

This utterly discredits your approach, methods, case and in fact the religion you profess.

Have a nice week

[Difflugia]

This does not appear to be the definition of faith used in the NT.

It looks to me like it's close enough, at least to the "faith" of Matthew's Jesus:

And Jesus answered them, “Truly, I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what has been done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and thrown into the sea,’ it will happen. And whatever you ask in prayer, you will receive, if you have faith.”

What would cure the defect you see in the definition? Is "belief despite inferences to the contrary" not part of faith or is there more to faith that needs to be taken into account?

Bible is not contradictory, or illogical, if you understand it correctly.

Or if you repeat it often enough despite all actual evidence to the contrary, apparently.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

This does not appear to be the definition of faith used in the NT. So the answer to the question in this thread is, “No.”

You may be splitting hairs here....

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.

POI "to trust in, or to apply hope in anyways, despite inference(s) to the contrary."

Anyone is free to define faith however they want for threads they create. However, if the New Testament writers did not use that definition then we will not be able to draw any accurate conclusions about the New Testament.

The objective of this topic is to explore IF the NT authors were aware that these storylines are not very believable for many. Hence, the emphasis of the term faith. Which-is-to-mean, for many, "hope for it anyways, despite not being able to see it".

[POI]

...I cannot simply chose to believe...

1) Please tell, who is preventing you to do so?

...the NT expresses the need to follow a certain 'moral' code....

2) Please tell what scripture you mean?

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)?

3) Bible is not contradictory, or illogical, if you understand it correctly.

1) You are missing my point in this thread... I cannot simply "will" myself to believe without already being convinced by evidence. Just like you cannot simply 'will' yourself to believe in something for which you are not convinced about.

2) I'm simply saying the Bible gives readers a (do's and don'ts) list.

3) We all know your position by now 1213. If something in the Bible "looks" to be wrong, the reader is mistaken. The Bible is flawless.

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

Now can we explore the topic I created?....

The objective of this topic is to explore IF the NT authors were aware that these storylines are not very believable for many. Hence, the emphasis of the term faith. Which-is-to-mean, for many, "hope for it anyways, despite not being able to see it".

[1213]

1) You are missing my point in this thread... I cannot simply "will" myself to believe without already being convinced by evidence. Just like you cannot simply 'will' yourself to believe in something for which you are not convinced about.

2) I'm simply saying the Bible gives readers a (do's and don'ts) list.

3) We all know your position by now 1213. If something in the Bible "looks" to be wrong, the reader is mistaken. The Bible is flawless.

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

Now can we explore the topic I created?....

The objective of this topic is to explore IF the NT authors were aware that these storylines are not very believable for many. Hence, the emphasis of the term faith. Which-is-to-mean, for many, "hope for it anyways, despite not being able to see it".

1) I can convince myself to believe things, if I want so.
2) Interesting, I see it differently. I think Bible rather gives a be and don't be list.

I think you understand the meaning of faith wrongly. It is about being faithful, loyal to God. Even a person who doesn't believe God, can be loyal to Him by keeping His word.

Also, I think Bible is not really about believing, but more about right understanding. Believing is not useful, if you are evil and unrighteous.

[POI]

1) I can convince myself to believe things, if I want so.

False. Please try and convince yourself that Santa Claus exists. You can't.

2) Interesting, I see it differently. I think Bible rather gives a be and don't be list.

Your position here is not different than mine. It is the same.

I think you understand the meaning of faith wrongly. It is about being faithful, loyal to God. Even a person who doesn't believe God, can be loyal to Him by keeping His word.

You just demonstrated my point. The part you stated in bold-red just agreed with my OP.

Also, I think Bible is not really about believing, but more about right understanding. Believing is not useful, if you are evil and unrighteous.

We've been all over this in the other thread about how you are saved. (Faith) is synonymous with (righteousness), ala Romans 3.