Correctness and Accuracy; Belief and Fact

The dictionary is a very good source. And yes you are being selective. Why didn't you look at the defintions from the dictionary that I already posted. The definitions are listed in order of importance or primary usage.

Notice that your definitions do not fit the most primary definitions of faith. You have chosen for your definitions the less common defintions for faith. That is characteristic of cults.
Faith is confidence or trust in the word of another, and that requires knowledge. Faith is not blind, as the above definitions (straight from the dictionary) indicate.

A troll is a hit and run poster who is there with no serious intention but to stir the pot as it were. And that seems to be your intention. You don't seem to be interested in finding out the truth. Your posts don't indicate a serious search for the truth.
--As for my statement quoted by you above, I tell you the truth. There is nothing about trolling at all. I have quoted you Scripture to back up what I say. You faith is in doubt. You say you have faith. But faith, of a necessity, must have an object. The object of my faith is Christ and the truth of his words, i.e. the Bible. Even Christ referred to the Books of Moses, the prophet of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and others. He did not doubt the authorship of these Old Testament books. Yet you do doubt the authorship of the New Testament books even when there is plenty of evidence to back up their authorship you post ignorantly to the contrary, without any evidence. When you put your opinions in print on this board then back them up with evidence. Authorship is important. If you can't believe the author, you can't believe the book. For in most of the books the author identifies himself. You live in a world of disbelief.

Your beliefs are somewhat heretical. I will say that plainly. You deny the authorship of the NT books, and then say it is not important who wrote them. You claim to have faith, and can't really define what faith is. When you do define it, you re-define it, or define it in such a way that it is not Biblical. Are you cantankerous or teachable? Which? Your answer to that question will tell me if you are a legitimate poster or a troll.

Start making logical sense from your statements of faith; statements that others can hold a reasonable discussion with. Prove to us that you are not a troll. Quit posting at random heretical, provoking statements that you cannot substantiate. If you have any evidence for your statements then post it. What evidence, other than your opinion, for example, can you give for John not being the author of the Gospel of John. The very fact that you make such an absurd provocative statement with no supporting evidence puts you in the category of a troll. Get the picture?
DHK

 

If you actually read my posts, you would know that I already referenced my dictionary on page three when I first posted those definitions. But, for your sake, I will give you the URL again:

http://www.selfknowledge.com/34748.htm

There are also a multitude of other dictionaries on line if you don't like this one. I also have the same dictionaries that you have: Heritage, ets. I just didn't bother typing them out because pasting these ones in was just as easy. Either way they are reliable defintions.

I'll demonstrate my point to you by on-line definitions from the American Heritage Dictionary, what you have done. You can find these on-line; the URL is given below. Here are the definitions of faith that are given by the American Heritage Dictionary:

http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/f/f0018400.html

Why do you ignore the very first definition, which is the primary definition of faith: "confident belief in the truth."[/i[
Why do you ignore the theological definition, the one that we ought to be most interested in: The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God.
These are the definitions that you ought to be most concerned with. The definitions that you chose differ from these greatly. You are creating a "new theology" by an aberrant definition of your own choosing of defining faith in your own way, not in a standard theological way.

You claim that you have faith. That is all. Faith always has an object. You have not declared yet what the object of your faith is: Allah? Buddha? the moon made out of green cheese? the President of the U.S.? Congress? What is the object of your faith. If you claim it to be Jesus, then what Jesus? If it is the Jesus of the Bible, then the Jesus of the Bible is defined by the truths set down in the Bible as accurately described by the ones that wrote the Bible. If you doubt the authors then you doubt the words that are in the Bible, which is doubting the Bible itself, which is then doubting Jesus. So what is the object of your faith. I have demonstrated now to you that it is not in Jesus, and it is not in the Bible. You deny both. Perahps it is in the idea that the moon is made out of green cheese! Is that the object of your faith. Remember that faith always has an object.

As I have both said and demonstrated, I don't doubt your using a recognized English Language Dictionary. That is a good thing. I doubt the manner in which you use it. You use it in the exact same way that many cults use it. They find the definition that best fits their theology, and use that definition for their own devious means. Are you doing the same thing? It appears so.

As I said before: You made the allegations that the books of the Bible were not written by the people who claimed that they were written by (example Gospel of John). Therefore the onus is on you to back up your outrageous claims. It is not on me. I accept the Bible as it is, as most of the good people on this board do. Back up what you say or shut up about it. Don't act like a troll and post provocative material without any evidence.

You are wrong. I can. But I am not going to take the time to dignify your challenge. You haven't taken the time to given any evidence to back up your claim. Why should I give any evidence in refuting it. You have everything backwards.
DHK

 

Honestly, Born again and again,
I fail to see why I should do the work that is your obligation to do. Remember, you are the one that has made the outlandish claim that John is not the author of the Gospel of John. And now you want me to prove that he is. Don’t you think that you have this backwards? I will tell you this much. There is an unbroken chain of evidence from Christ to John to Polycarp to Irenaeus and on to Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian. There are enough of the early church fathers and their writings to account for the Johannine authorship that it becomes indisputable. I have hardly scratched the surface of external evidence, and haven’t even begun to lay out internal evidence. Yet all of this is your responsibility to disprove. You’re the one that made the allegation, not me.
DHK

 

>>Using the dictionary, try to define "faith" without using the word "belief".<<

>Faith in Jesus Christ does not come from a dictionary.<

Evangelical Protestant Christanity is "gnostic" in the sense that it redefines words in ways that only insiders can understand. When I read Catholic material I can use the dictionary for words that I don't understand. Reconstructionists are the worst. They can change the meaning of words 3 times in one paragraph.

 

Your faith does not exist except blindly, as in the moon is made of green cheese. Faith has an object.
You have said that faith is when you know something to be true. You have no evidence to know that the Word of God is true, when you deny the authorship of the Books of the Bible. When you deny the authorship of the books you deny many of the inherent truths that are written by the same author. Some of the same authors identify themselves and give their life experience. For example Peter tells us how he was on the Mount of Transfiguration and describes it as one of greatest experiences he has ever had. Deny that Peter is the author of his epistles, and you deny the experiences of Peter, which are recorded in Mat.17; Luke 9; and Mark 9. Were those gospels written by their actual authors or did Peter just make up the story. Did Matthew for example record what Peter later told him, or just made up a fable?
If you don't know who the author is you don't know the veracity of the book, and you have no truth to believe. So don't tell me that you believe in the truth. You don't. You don't know what the truth is as long as you deny the authorship of these books.

The authorsip of these books can be proven. But like I say, I didn't start this conversation you did. You made the outlandish statement that John is hot the author of the Gospel of John, and offered no evidence to prove your assertion. The onus is on you to prove your assertion. Without any evidence you are a troll, a liar, and a deceiver. Provide evidence for what you say.
DHK

 

ba&a is wasting your time DHK . He has never answered as to the object of his faith. One of his original statements on page one was... " no one knows what Jesus said, as he never wrote anything down and neither did anyone who witnessed his actions ."

If his faith is not in what Jesus said, then he is not a born again Christian. The only place you find the term "born again" is in the book of John which claims "Jesus said". Therefore he cannot be born again, for as he claims, he knows not what Jesus said!

He should prove himself or be banned. Even if he is not a Christian I could see letting him stay if he were here to learn, but it is obvious he is here only to spew out heresy.

God Bless!

 

My Premise:
The Loch Ness monster resides in Loch Ness, Scotland.

That is my premise. I offer no evidence; no proof. The onus is on the BB to disprove me.

That is what you have done here BA&A.
A ridiculous proposition indeed!!

 

You state that you are a born again Christian.

Who said that ye must be born again?

God Bless!