The Tension of Faith

Nevertheless the claim is that Genesis, as well as all the other books of the Bible, was inspired by God, and lots of us believe it in spite of the standard EvC debunkery.

The argument about evidence goes back to my pointing out that the apostle John said at the end of his gospel that he had described many things Jesus had done so that people could believe in Him and have eternal life through Him. He described many miracles, suspensions of the natural law, as his evidence. This of course IS evidence. He witnessed miracles and reported on them. All a confirmed denier of miracles can say is that obviously John is crazy or he's lying. There's nothing about the man to suggest he's doing anything but telling the truth, but the confirmed debunker believes otherwise anyway. So some of us are capable of being persuaded by accounts of miracles. Good for us. There's no point even in talking to the others, they have nothing to say.

I disagree, Faith. There is always a point to the discussion, even if, and especially if it challenges what you believe in. Words are our way of communicating with ourselves and others the ideas, values, and beliefs which we all freely hold dear.You personally have contributed a majority of the volume of words and ideas expressed here at EvC Forum, but I can say that I personally feel and believe that Percy has contributed a good percentage of the quality of words and ideas expressed here. This Forum---in the diminishing time in which it has left, can be and I dare say will be a forum for quality expression rather than authoritarian spam. There is never only one correct point of view and the whole modern idea that news should be censored and that there is a real view and a fake view is quite frankly alarming.

If you want to convince anyone of the reality of something, such as miracles, then you shouldn't be seeking the right words to say. You should be seeking the right evidence to present.--Percy

Describing somebody's argument as worthless is not a proposal of censorship.Sheesh.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I've given up trying to convince anybody here of anything. Convincing someone who says miracles are flat impossible in the teeth of John's many descriptions just shows the futility of debate at EvC.

Or mistaken. That aside...

quote:

---

the Gospel of John is anonymousJohn is usually dated to AD 90—110.[17][Notes 6] It arose in a Jewish Christian community in the process of breaking from the Jewish synagogue.[18] Scholars believe that the text went through two to three redactions, or "editions", before reaching its current form

---

Could have been anybody and probably was more than one. It certainly had an agenda for which a story involving miracles was helpful.When you can't even identify the author and establish him as an eye witness and find that the words are a concatonation of several people's ideas which have then been edited by anonymous others, you are left with zip as far as evidence goes.What you have is a story and a an extremely suspect one at that.

No one doubts you believe that. The issue arises when you claim more than just your belief.Once you try to claim it as fact then you are expected to be able to provide evidence to support such a claim. Given that the Bible is inconsistent, often contradictory and factually wrong support such a position is near impossible and just an exercise in futility.

I don't think anyone believes phenomena with evidence are impossible. You're taking on an insurmountable task, one of convincing people of the miraculous not with evidence but with words from long ago when people believed many things we know today are not true.--Percy

The author of John has even said that he is describing miracles as a way of marketing his version of Jesus and Faith has even referred to that very fact.The author of John has been very honest in claiming that the agenda was to market Jesus as a divine character.

I agree--it is bad form to say so. Challenging someone's argument is fair game, provided it is done with integrity and honesty. Reiterating points using CAPITAL letters or restating the same points numerous times adds nothing to a discussion. The challenge for any of us as writers and authors of beliefs and ideas is to present them in a new and better form of expression. Even in matters of Faith and Belief, there is no right and wrong belief or opinion. There is only your opinion and my opinion. (And take note--I am saying this as a believer in Jesus Christ.) Something tells me that you will never give up, but I might suggest that you focus on taking more time to be creative and persuasive with how you present your argument. I have noticed Percy's responses to you and others recently, as well as noting how you all have responded to each other ten years ago. Archives allow that. I must say that in my opinion, he is putting a lot of thought and discipline into his replies. We could both learn from that, and my point is that none of us will convince anybody of anything by being careless with our replies. CONCLUSION: Be diligent in forming a reply, use reasoned argumentation and evidence if available, be honest, and let the words speak for themselves.

Interesting line of thought. Could you elaborate on it and give me a scripture or two to further your point?

At least we have no evidence that they were true. Perhaps we could better use our talents to convince people that we ourselves have integrity rather than attempting to convince them that the Bible itself has integrity.

As I stated before an intent to persuade is better evidence of bias than of truthfulness. And it is rather obvious that the author of John, for instance was out to promote the claim of Jesus’ divinity.If the Gospel of John were an eyewitness account it would still be of questionable reliability for other reasons. It includes things John did not witness, ancient writers were often credulous - miracle stories are not that rare, and being written relatively late there is much time for confabulation - which is all but certain to occur.However, it is likely that the Gospel was not written by an eyewitness. The author was highly literate, unlike the uneducated John. The only direct claim to an eyewitness source was very likely written by a redactor by its wording alone (we know his testimony is true) - and the redactor may not even have meant that the original author was John, and certainly could be mistaken (perhaps confusing John the Disciple with John the Elder, named by Papias)So, the authorship is far from certain, and there are very good reasons to distrust the miracle stories.Which leaves us with the fact that the Gospel of John is not good evidence at all for the truth of Christian claims.

Excellent advice, Phat.One thing I can point out is that most of the arguments in the New Testament are intended to reinforce the belief of those who already believe. No one should be surprised when simply repeating such arguments does not stand up to close, skeptical, scrutiny.