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?

[Clownboat]

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #109]

One of the NT writer's objective(s), whoever they actually were, was to gain new converts, right?

The Bible happens to mention faith, as well as mentioning eternal torment, many times, right?

An effective way to gain new converts would be to prop up levels of faith and fear, right?

These observations are true. What they suggest will likely cause them to not be addressed though, but here is to hoping.

Selling 'tickets to heaven' is a great way to evangelize to children and takes faith to be believed. For the stubborn ones, threats of a hell (eternal torment) will sometimes work.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #110]

One of the NT writer's objective(s), whoever they actually were, was to gain new converts, right?

Could you please demonstrate how this could be the case when it can be demonstrated beyond any doubt that the overwhelming majority of the NT can be demonstrated to be addressed to audiences at the time who would have already believed, with the authors having no idea, nor any concern that anyone else would ever read what they had to write other than the intended audience at the time, and they certainly had no idea about any sort of Bible? In other words, we have the two letters addressed to Theophilus, who was already a believer, and when we combined this with the letters of Paul, which were all addressed to those who were believers at the time, we already have the overwhelming majority of the NT being addressed to those who were believers. Add to this the fact that some of the other letters attributed to Peter, Jude, and John are addressed to believing audiences as well, and the fact that what little would be left may have been addressed to believing audiences as well, how could one come to the conclusion that the authors had any sort of objective to "gain new converts"?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #111]

These observations are true. What they suggest will likely cause them to not be addressed though, but here is to hoping.

Selling 'tickets to heaven' is a great way to evangelize to children and takes faith to be believed. For the stubborn ones, threats of a hell (eternal torment) will sometimes work.

The above coming from one who freely admits to being a convinced Christian based upon faulty reasoning who does not even realize that the overwhelming majority of the NT was addressed to those who were already believers, which eliminates the idea the writings were intended to win new converts. I mean, you cannot make this stuff up! How in the world can what is contained in the NT be considered to be intending to win new converts, when it is easily demonstrated that the overwhelming majority of what is contained in the NT was addressed to believing audiences at the time, with the authors having no idea, nor any concern as to anyone else ever reading what they had to say other than believing audiences? Moreover, the little that is left in the NT more than likely was intended for believing audiences, and with this being the case, none of the authors intended their writings to convert new believers, since they were addressing those who already believed.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #0]

First of all, it is correct that the validity of Christian claims stand or fall based on their own merits independent of whether any other extraordinary claims are determined to be true or false. However, this isn't the purpose of comparing the claims of Christianity to other extraordinary claims.

First, are you speaking for everyone? Because I can assure you that the comparison has been made by others in order to point out the assumption that one simply accepts one extraordinary claim, and rejects all other extraordinary claims simply based upon what one would rather believe. It is a fact that many folks operate in this way, but this does not in any way necessitate that it would be impossible to come to the conclusion that there are good reasons to believe one of the claims, while not knowing, or even caring if there may be good reasons to believe the other claims. In other words, simply because I am arguing that there are good reasons to believe one of the claims, does not mean I am insisting there would be no good reasons to believe the other claims.

I was not speaking for everyone.

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #0]

The purpose for such comparisons is to examine the reliability of the reasoning process (i.e., method of investigation) that underlies the decision to accept a particular claim as being true.

What you continue to want to do is to bring the scientific method into the equation, and while I certainly believe in science, what we are dealing with here is outside the realm of science. Science cannot tell us if any of these extraordinary claims have occurred in history. Rather, science can only tell us if any of these claims would be scientifically possible. However, simply because science determines that an event would be scientifically impossible, does not at all demonstrate the event did not occur. Rather, this would simply mean that if such an event occurred, science would not be able to explain it, because such an event would be outside the realm of science.

So then, if I would like to know if a resurrection has occurred in history, I can certainly refer to science in order to determine if a resurrection would be scientifically possible, but this would simply be a piece in the puzzle, and one would need to understand that science is not the final arbitrator in this case, because the issue is outside the realm of science. The point is science is extremely valuable, but for one to be under the impression that science will ever have all the answers is for one to have an unreliable reasoning process, because there are many things outside the realm of science. The bottom line is again, science can certainly tell us that a resurrection is scientifically impossible, but this certainly in no way tells us that a resurrection has never occurred. Rather, it simply tells us that if a resurrection has occurred, science would not be able to explain it, since such an event would be outside the realm of science. There is a tremendous difference between one holding science in high regard, and believing in the scientific method, as opposed to one being under the impression that the scientific method is the way in which we should seek to answer all questions.

The information I provided was neither an endorsement of science nor an argument for the scientific method. The purpose of my post was to explain that any reasoning process you choose must have been demonstrated to be consistently reliable if the conclusions produced from it are to be justifiably accepted. While the scientific method is routinely demonstrated to be consistently reliable, I am not arguing it is the only reasoning process that could meet this standard.

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #0]

This is important because it would not be justifiable to accept a conclusion that was derived through an unreliable reasoning process

Correct, and I tell other Christians this myself. In other words, I point out the fact that, they really do not know what they believe, nor why they believe it. This means, they have come to believe upon a faulty reasoning process. In fact, I believe I can demonstrate from this very site that we have former Christians who freely admit to the fact that they had no reasons to be convinced Christianity was true, and yet they continued to be Christian well into adulthood. The problem here is, they certainly seem to be under the impression that since they had no good reason to be convinced, that this somehow demonstrates that all other Christians must, and had to come to the conclusions they had based upon the same method, and I think you would have to agree that this sort of thinking would be faulty. I am just telling you that you would have to agree that there are many folks who were at one time convinced Christians, who have now rejected Christianity, who are convinced that since they are admitting to a faulty reasoning process, that this somehow demonstrates that all Christians must and have to have the same reasoning process, and if this is correct, then you would have to agree that this would be a faulty reasoning process. The point is faulty reasoning does not simply lie with the Christian. Rather, it also pertains to those who freely admit to using a faulty reasoning process to become a Christian, who now want to convince us they have a more reliable reasoning process, which is what caused them to reject what they were once convinced of. Well, pardon me if I am not convinced their reasoning is any better now. In other words, simply because one has changed the mind, does not in any way demonstrate the mind is now engaged.

Again, the purpose of my post was to explain that a chosen reasoning process must be demonstrably reliable for its conclusions to be justifiably accepted. If a chosen method of investigation produces contradictory or otherwise incompatible conclusions when consistently applied to a variety of comparable claims, then it is not demonstrably reliable. When it comes to the conclusions you've arrived at, your chosen reasoning process is the only one that should matter to you in terms of testing its reliability. The reliability of other people's reasoning processes are entirely irrelevant in this context.

Hypothetically, other people could learn about your chosen reasoning process from you and subsequently apply it consistently to a variety of comparable claims to potentially discover that it produces what appears to be contradictory or otherwise incompatible conclusions. Should such an outcome occur, it could mean your chosen reasoning process is unreliable or that those people failed to apply it correctly. In either case, the reliability of the other people's reasoning processes are not even on the table for debate because it was your chosen reasoning process that was being tested. When confronted with such a scenario, try to determine if those people properly understood how to appropriately apply your method of investigation. If you discover that they applied it correctly and consistently to a variety of comparable claims yet arrived at contradictory or otherwise incompatible conclusions, then intellectual honesty should compel you question the reliability of your chosen reasoning process. Again, this outcome would have nothing whatsoever to do with the truth value of the claims under investigation.

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #0]

even if that conclusion was later demonstrated to be correct through a more reliable method of investigation.

Correct, and again I continue to attempt to explain to fellow Christians, "while what you claim to believe may be true, you really do not know what you believe, nor why you believe it." What I am doing is to explain to them their reasoning is faulty. What I think you are failing to realize is the fact that there are some things which can be believed, which cannot absolutely be demonstrated. In other words, we can both look at the same facts and evidence, and come to completely different conclusions, and we could both have very good reasons to be convinced as we are. Now, we can acknowledge this to be the case and agree to disagree, going on to agree that one or the both of us are in error, or we can continue to insist that the other is guilty of faulty reasoning.

What claims should or should not be believed on the basis of being demonstrable or not is determined by the chosen reasoning process and falls outside the context of my post. My post was about determining the reliability of any chosen reasoning process and did not convey a judgement on the reliability of your chosen reasoning process one way or the other.

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #0]

This is important because it would not be justifiable to accept a conclusion that was derived through an unreliable reasoning process, even if that conclusion was later demonstrated to be correct through a more reliable method of investigation.

Allow me to explain to you the conclusions I have come to, and you go on to explain my faulty reasoning. I am convinced there are very good reasons to believe the claims of the resurrection. While it would be impossible for me to go into the whole reasoning process here, I am also convinced there very well may be good reasons to believe the claims may be false. Therefore, I am not insisting that I must, and have to be correct, and there would be no reasons to be opposed to the position I hold. I am not insisting that all who are opposed have faulty reasoning, although I am convinced that many opposed do in fact have faulty reasoning, while going on to acknowledge that many, if not the majority of those who are Christian have faulty reasoning. Although I have demonstrated that many of those opposed to the position I hold have faulty reasoning , I do not insist this demonstrates that all opposed must and have to have a faulty reasoning. Therefore, I am here on this site in order to discuss, and debate the facts and evidence concerning Christianity, in no way in order to convince anyone to convert to Christianity. Rather, I am here to determine how my arguments hold up to those opposed, not insisting those opposed have no reasons to be opposed.

As far as the rest of what you have to say, I believe you are a scientist, and you rely heavily upon the scientific method. Again, I believe in the scientific method, and I hold science in high regard. However, I understand that there are many things which are outside the realm of science and am not under the impression that science has the answers to all questions. In other words, science deals with science, and uses the scientific method. Historians deal with history, and this does not employ the scientific method, since these are different realms.

The previously described test for reliability logically applies to all methods of investigation, not just science. To discover if your chosen method of investigation is reliable or not, you must test if it produces contradictory or otherwise incompatible conclusions when consistently applied to a variety of comparable non-Christian claims. However, if your chosen reasoning process is customized to the point where it only applies in the analysis of Christian claims to the exclusion of all comparable non-Christian claims, then it will be logically impossible to properly justify its reliability to yourself and anyone else. This isn't to suggest that your chosen reasoning process does or does not satisfy those criteria but to merely note the possibility. That is the only information I intended to convey in this discussion, and I thank you for taking the time to consider it. Be well.

[POI]

Could you please demonstrate how this could be the case

I thought I already did, when I was telling you about 'doubting Thomas'? The NT writers express to the reader(s) that believing without seeing is preferred. But you need more? Okay...

Hebrews 11:1 " Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.".

Romans 10:9 "Because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved"

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"

John 3:36 "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him"

James 1:6 "But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind"

Mark 16:16: "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned"

As you and I already agreed, if you are convinced, you no longer need any faith. And yet, the NT writers are writing to the ones which require faith; as most ain't getting a 'doubting Thomas' moment.

And I haven't yet touched much on the coercion part. I guess Mark 16:16 and John 3:36 does a bit....

when it can be demonstrated beyond any doubt that the overwhelming majority of the NT can be demonstrated to be addressed to audiences at the time who would have already believed, with the authors having no idea, nor any concern that anyone else would ever read what they had to write other than the intended audience at the time, and they certainly had no idea about any sort of Bible? In other words, we have the two letters addressed to Theophilus, who was already a believer, and when we combined this with the letters of Paul, which were all addressed to those who were believers at the time, we already have the overwhelming majority of the NT being addressed to those who were believers. Add to this the fact that some of the other letters attributed to Peter, Jude, and John are addressed to believing audiences as well, and the fact that what little would be left may have been addressed to believing audiences as well, how could one come to the conclusion that the authors had any sort of objective to "gain new converts"?

You and I already agree the NT was not a thing, until much later. At some point, a motivated group decided to compile all these documents together. The canon was not made official until emperor Constantine -- (300-ish years after a Jesus). He made this belief system the official legal religion. This is when 'The Bible' began to "flourish." The Bible was then canonized. Humans picked and chose what letters to leave in, and which ones to leave out, and it is quite evident that modification(s) have been made. Case/point, the ending of Mark. Also, when you compare Mark and Luke alone, you can tell such authors are attempting to persuade differing audiences.

As I already stated, the ones who later read 'The Bible' would not have direct (Jesus moments), like 'doubting Thomas'. Hence, this is why faith and fear are propped up all over the Bible, in order to gain more converts.

[POI]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #111]

These observations are true. What they suggest will likely cause them to not be addressed though, but here is to hoping.

Selling 'tickets to heaven' is a great way to evangelize to children and takes faith to be believed. For the stubborn ones, threats of a hell (eternal torment) will sometimes work.

The above coming from one who freely admits to being a convinced Christian based upon faulty reasoning who does not even realize that the overwhelming majority of the NT was addressed to those who were already believers

You've missed the entire point. The "NT" was not a thing until 100's of years later. Many verses objectively exist within the "NT" which tells readers that faith is preferred. Case/point, 'doubting Thomas', etc etc etc...

[Difflugia]

Could you please demonstrate how this could be the case when it can be demonstrated beyond any doubt that the overwhelming majority of the NT can be demonstrated to be addressed to audiences at the time who would have already believed,

First, "addressed to" doesn't always coincide with the intended audience.

Second, the only things that are "demonstrated" are the actual wordings of the texts. Your conjectures beyond those about authorial intention are just that: conjecture.

with the authors having no idea, nor any concern that anyone else would ever read what they had to write other than the intended audience at the time,

This is pure speculation.

and they certainly had no idea about any sort of Bible?

We already discussed the difference between "any sort of Bible" and "the Bible as we know it now." Your statement as written is either false or meaningless, depending on what you mean by "any sort of Bible."

In other words, we have the two letters addressed to Theophilus,

There are no letters addressed to Theophilus. Luke and Acts are dedicated to Theophilus, but they aren't letters.

who was already a believer,

We don't even know if Theophilus was a real person or a stand-in for "dear Reader."

and when we combined this with the letters of Paul, which were all addressed to those who were believers at the time, we already have the overwhelming majority of the NT being addressed to those who were believers.

Even if being addressed to believers indicates that the intended audience is solely those believers, that still only includes the Pauline epistles. Even there, though, only half of those are most likely genuine, leaving us to wonder what was intended by the other half. Were the pseudepigraphic Paulines intended only to sway the opinions of existing believers? That's not an unreasonable conclusion, but far from the self-evident, rock-solid fact you want it to be. In any event, seven of the Paulines is not the "overwhelming majority" of the New Testament.

Add to this the fact that some of the other letters attributed to Peter, Jude, and John are addressed to believing audiences as well, and the fact that what little would be left may have been addressed to believing audiences as well, how could one come to the conclusion that the authors had any sort of objective to "gain new converts"?

It's generally accepted that the catholic epistles were penned after the Church had estblished the practice of circulating copies of letters between them. Considering also the broad and likely symbolic addressees ("to the Twelve Tribes of the Diaspora," "to them that are called 'beloved of the Father'"), it's not a stretch to think that the letters were intended for wider circulation than some insular group of those secure in their faith.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #114]

My friend, we have already been down this road, and it makes no sense. I believe you have come to the conclusion that Christianity may well be true, correct? Exactly what reasoning method did you use which allowed you to come to such a conclusion? Exactly what method of reasoning did the majority of scholars use (whether Christian or not) to come to the conclusion that the earliest followers of Jesus were truly convinced they had encountered Jesus alive after the crucifixion? In fact, these scholars do not simply believe this to be the case, but this is rather something they say we can know. How are these scholars so convinced this is something we can know? Well, it can only be by reading what is contained in the NT. Before we move on, it must be said that these scholars are not saying that those who authored the NT were convinced the earliest followers were convinced they had encountered Jesus after death. Rather, they are saying we can know the earliest followers were truly convinced they had encountered Jesus after death.

Whether you would like to admit it or not, this is huge. It is huge in that this tells us we have enough facts and evidence, not simply to believe the earliest followers of Jesus were convinced this to be the case, but rather to know this to be the case. Next, if the scholars are correct (and the evidence certainly is in their favor) this means we can know these folks were not involved in any sort of hoax. The fact of the matter is, we can pretty much know this to be the case anyway, because it would have been next to impossible for these folks to pull such a thing off. At any rate, we are back to knowing these early followers were not intending to report what they knew to be fiction, nor were they intending to report legend, or myth, and we can also eliminate the idea they may have been lying, and we can do this with the facts and evidence we have contained in the NT.

Now, none of the above demonstrates a resurrection occurred, but it certainly does not eliminate a resurrection. You leave open the possibility that a resurrection may have occurred, but you really are convinced that it did not. That is, if you are going to be intellectually honest. Or are you saying that you have not made up your mind on the matter as of yet? Do you really want to tell us that you do not hold a position on the matter? On the other hand, I certainly admit that the resurrection may not have occurred, but I am convinced that it did. With this being the case, I am not insisting that those opposed, or those who claim to abstain, do not have reasons for the position they hold, and I am not in any way questioning their method of reasoning. What I am questioning is those who tell us they were a convinced Christian at one time, who goes on to admit they used a faulty reasoning process to come to such a conclusion, who now wants to ensure us that they really do not hold a position at all concerning whether Christianity is true or not.

The point is, if you are leaving open the possibility that Christianity is true, then there must and have to be good reasons to believe it to be true, otherwise there would be no good reason to leave open the possibility. If this is the position you hold, then there is not a whole lot of difference between the position I hold, in that I am not insisting those opposed have no good reason to be opposed, and I am not questioning their method of reasoning. The only option I see left would be to say, there are no good reasons to believe Christianity to be true, but since I cannot demonstrate it to be false, we have to leave open the possibility. If this is the case, then there would be a difference between us in that I again, am not insisting those opposed do not have reasons for doubt, and or unbelief.

The real question is, are you truly convinced there is a possibility Christianity may in fact be true? Or do you hold to the position that the possibility is slim to none? I truly understand the possibility of my error, and the thing is, (whether you would like to believe it or not) I would rather not believe the Christian claims. If you were truly a convinced Christian at one time, who truly understood, and now understands what Christianity is about, can you please explain to me why anyone would want to believe it, if they truly understand it? I really do not get it?

If I am correct, then we have those who are Christian who would rather believe it, who really do not understand it. However, this may also mean we have those who have rejected Christianity who would have rather believed it to be true, which would demonstrate they could not have possibly understood it, because if they would have truly understood it, they could not have possibly rather believe it.

[Clownboat]

The above coming from one who freely admits to being a convinced Christian based upon faulty reasoning

There is only faulty reasoning to believe that a decomposed corpse rose bodily from the grave. If I'm wrong, please present the valid reason to believe that decomposing bodies (let's say around the 3 day mark) can reanimate to life.

You are correct that I was once a convinced Christian. Street evangelizing, drunk in the Holy Ghost, tongue talking missionary (3 countries) in fact.

who does not even realize that the overwhelming majority of the NT was addressed to those who were already believers, which eliminates the idea the writings were intended to win new converts.

This has already been addressed, so there is no need for me to beat this dead horse.

I mean, you cannot make this stuff up!

If you're talking about claims of decomposing bodies reanimating to life, such things can in fact be made up. What cannot be done is show that such things are possible in reality, which makes such a belief to be invalid and likely the product of faulty reasoning. It seems as if you are trying to slay us with irony!

[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.”

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."

I do not think this is splitting hairs. In fact, this seems essential to this thread.

The definition in Hebrews is well known. It is the definition of faith provided by the New Testament, yet this thread uses a different definition and applies that new definition to the NT. I can think of only two reasons for this.

One is that in creating this thread the author was unaware of the definition provided by the NT. This lack of knowledge about the NT would make it difficult to accept any conclusion about the NT that come from this thread.

The other option is that in creating this thread the author does know about the definition provided by the NT and intentionally chose a different definition. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, so I lean toward this explanation. However, this would mean that in creating the thread the author knew that the definition provided by the NT would not serve their purposes, so they chose a different definition specifically because it was a significant change (i.e. not splitting hairs).

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".

The NT authors certainly portray these events as unusual and therefor noteworthy, but I do not see anything in the text which suggests that they did not think their account were believable. Obviously a person can chose not to believe what was written, but we should not impose our cynicism onto the writers.