The Tension of Faith

Yes I believe John is trustworthy and his account is true, that's why his descriptions work as evidence for me as I've said many times, and can't be evidence for anyone who isn't able to recognize that John is trustworthy and his account true. That being the case there's really nothing more to say that I can see.

Which of course is ridiculous if one is far and away of higher quality in every conceivable category of believability and sheer greatness of thought as Christianity so obviously is. So believe as you will, I've said all I can think of to say and failed to convince you so there's no point in continuing to beat my head against this wall.

That is just plain stupid, sorry.

When I said the concept of faith is really only a Christian concept, I supposed that it isn't even mentioned in the writings of other religions, certainly not in the same kind of context. Anybody know how to find out? Faith is central to Christianity, it's all over the New Testament, we are to put our lives on the line if necessary for faith in Christ's gift of eternal life.It's true that jihadis are willing to die for the promise of going to paradise to be served by 70 virgins, but that's a pretty odd idea of faith since they commit murder to deserve it, whereas Christians are to submit to being murdered if it comes to that. Still, I suppose one COULD say the jihadi is acting in some sort of "faith." I would, however, point out that Islam began in the seventh century after Christ and is known for incorporating parts of the Bible, weirdly twisted however.Anyway it's a question someone with better eyes than mine might be able to answer.Yes I do get very impatient when unbelievers carry on as if they know better than Christians do what Christianity is all about, and say stupid things as if we never thought of them ourselves and know they are false. Yes I've already said all I want to say so far on this thread, barring something new that catches my attention.I took something like five years of reading about all kinds of religions before I became a Christian in my forties, and since then I've read hundreds upon hundreds of books on the subject and heard probably thousands of sermons, and in my old age I'm getting very impatient with know-nothings who feel free to pontificate against my accurate statements, yes even including in some cases other Christians or some who claim to be. I suppose I'm getting impatient with debate as such, what a waste of time in an atmosphere where so many are determined to kill the truth.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Paul's "visionary experience" was an actual encounter with the real living risen Christ from heaven, and even a visionary experience alone can be evidence a person might base conversion on.As for Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, lots of people join religions for all kinds of reasons, but they don't have to put their lives on the line for their belief. Chrsitians do. When it comes to that we'll find out how many of us REALLY believe in Christ's salvation.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

And the gospels are clearly written records, description of actual events, and your calling them "religious works," whatever that is, makes discussion with you impossible.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

There are no "unhistorical additions," there are, however, subtractions galore showing an anti-supernatural bias in the so-called "earliest" manuscripts which are heretical forgeries.You buy all the BS the modern textual critics throw at you, and the lies about the "earliest" manscripts, so we have little we can agree about. Mark was NOT the earliest gospel, Matthew was, which is why the books are arranged as they are. And the last twelve verses of Mark are genuine, clumsily erased from Sinaiticus leaving a big gaping obvious hole in the text, because either the early heretic that produced it didn't like it, or the later forger didn't. And Bruce Metzger should never have been allowed to get his profane paws on the Bible.All today's "Greek scholars" are deceived and deceiving. I have a whole blog on this subject by the way.Paul didn't need to have the physical gospels, he spent time with the disciples and with the Lord and everything he wrote shows agreement with the gospels.

John would not have said that he wrote what he hoped would persuade readers to Christ if he wasn't writing the straight truth about Christ. You can't put your trust in a fictional character in a fictional "religious writing," obviously he wrote what he witnessed and expected that the truth of the miracles would show the reader the true nature of Christ.It's so obvious it's clear that the opposition here refuses to see the truth, they just don't like it so they say ridiculously false things to support their bias. John's writing proves that Jesus is God incarnate, that He died so that those who believe in Him could have eternal life. But what inconvenient ideas those are for people who just don't like them.

Christian theology for two thousand years fully affirms the actual historical reality of Christ and the actual historical reality of His miraculous acts as intended for evidence of His deity, and John is one of the many honest authors of scripture inspired by God. Only an anti-supernatural bias explains all the lying debunkery on this thread.

One does not speak of an historical account of actual events in the real world as a "religious work." That implies something like a treatise, not a report of observations of real events. The gospels are historical accounts, not religious works.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No, because it's basically the same problem, your effort to pretend they aren't about real historical events just because they refer to people and events you prefer to call "religious."{What makes a miracle "religious?" That seems to be what you have in mind. Water turned to wine. What makes that "religious?" It's an event that happened in real time, what makes it "religious?" or "sacred" for that matter? A few loaves and fishes miraculously multiplied into thousands, what is "religious" about that? After his death Jesus appeared in a glorified body that could walk through walls, what's "religious" about that observed historical event that occurred in real time? Calling these things "religious" is just a way of pretending they didn't happen. They happened, there's nothing religious about them, they are simply real events that happened in real time. The Book of Psalms is a "religious work," or even "sacred writing," the books of Genesis, Exodus, Judges, Samuel, Ruth, Esther and Kings are predominantly historical writings. Etc.}Kbertsche is right that even with "religious content" they don't lose their historicity, but I don't even want to agree with him about religious content, because that's just terminology designed to discredit their real historical existence in the end anyway.Also to say they are examples of a literary genre of biography, as KB does, implies that the fishermen who followed Jesus would have been familiar with that genre, which is ridiculous. No, they are simple descriptive accounts of events that they witnessed or knew about in the real world, most concerning Jesus' miraculous acts, which makes them "historical" by any definition.That describes the four gospels and it also describes the Book of Acts: events in real time. The spistles on the other hand, all of them but perhaps most particularly Paul's, could be called religious works because they ARE more like treatises than the gospels and Book of Acts are. That is, they are teachings though they may also include some historial references, and that's what most religious writings of other religions are. The gospels and the Book of Acts, however, are NOT, they are primarily historical works.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Sorry, it's you against millions of Christians for two thousand years. You lose.

Not at all, it means the contradiction is a glitch of your fallen mind so that you falsely assess God's word.

I'm sure you wouldn't feel free to give your utterly uneducated opinion on some authoritative scientific treatise, in fact you'd be very polite and deferential to those who have studied it more than you have, but for some reason ignorami feel quite free to slather the Bible with their ignorance. Millions of people who revere, believe and follow the revelations in the Bible, even the source of all the blessings westerners receive in this world, should be enough of an answer, but arrogant antiChristianity rules the world today. And that includes the "scholars" who make it all up as they go along too instead of submitting to it as God's word.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Sorry, a simple descriptive report of a miraculous event is a simple descriptive report of a miraculous event, it's history.