Your dislike is not a fit opposition to Nazism I am afraid. The reason for this is simple: your dislike is your opinion only. No one else need share it. Certainly Hitler did not share it.
I already explained this. Apparently you didn't like that I've thought things through so much that you decided to ignore it and pretend that I've still got a problem. I told you, if I were the only one with the "dislike" of Hitler's actions, then he would not have very strong opposition -- at least, not in the Jew-killing area (there would still be his ambitions of conquest that could raise a few hackles). I could jump up and down and shout, "What's wrong with you, can't you see that $DEITY doesn't want this to happen!?", but I doubt that would be very effective.
Is his "like" of killing Jews any morally better than your "dislike"?
From a universal standpoint? No, and I never claimed as much.
You must call on something higher.
Nonsense. Just because you want there to be a standard by which you can universally define Hitler's actions as "wrong" does not mean that such a standard exists. You're arguing from wishful thinking.
What led you to believe that?
Oh, I don't know.
Things that I've read..
In fact an enormous number of Bible scholars believe that Peter wrote 1 and 2 Peter, John wrote the Gospel of John and 1, 2, and 3 John Epistles, and so on.
References?
In the orthodox community there is in fact very little disagreement about this.
References?
That's why I said you "speculated." An outright denial on your part is a bit misleading, though.
I speculated among three possbilities. You then asked "which was it". If I present three possibilities of what "might" have happened, don't call me a liar when I can't tell you what I claim to know for certain happened. If you want to know what I'm most likely to believe, it's the "mistaken" one, since everything that I have read has concluded that the original authors of the Gospels (note: not the entirety of the New Testament -- I'm not about to dispute writings attributed to Paul) were not the Apostles themselves, especially since the first of the Gospels is estimated to have been put to paper (or whatever ancient equivalent applies) forty years after the fact.
I have no idea where you got the notion that no scholar of note believes that the books of the Bible are written by those who claim to have written them. Matthew was an apostle, John was an apostle. Mark and Luke were not, but there accopunts correlate very closely with Matthew's and John's.
I'll ignore the known discrepencies among the various Gospels for now.
Except that there's no claim of authorship to the Gospels. The title of Matthew is The Gospel According to Matthew, not The Gospel as Written by Matthew. This title could be accurate even if it were transcribed from what had for many years earlier been oral tradition. Maybe Matthew's Gospel did originate with Matthew, but several years of word of mouth being passed down can change a few details. As for the consistency that is there, I suspect that sections of a tale that too blatantly contradicted the other Gospels would have found themselves tossed out of the compilation.
Therefore the only logical inference that can be drawn is: where they lying, insane or telling the truth?
Putting aside the fact that I've not seen a credible source (as in, a source that uses more than "because I said so" as reasoning) that claims that Matthew, Mark, John or Luke were the actual writers of the Gospels named for them, you still leave out the "mistaken" possibility, since you seem to be stuck on the "Lord, Liar or Lunatic" false trichotomy made popular by C.S. Lewis. Ancient Greeks believed that they received messages from the gods through various signs. Were they lying, insane or telling the truth?
From a universal standpoint? No, and I never claimed as much. So you cannot condemn as abolutely wrong (the "universal standpoint") the massacring of innocent Jews by Hitler? Please correct me if I am mistaken here.
Just because you want there to be a standard by which you can universally define Hitler's actions as "wrong" does not mean that such a standard exists.
No, you are well aware that such a standard exists. You can't universally condemn mass murder, but you can't bring yourself to shrug it off either.
I could jump up and down and shout, "What's wrong with you, can't you see that $DEITY doesn't want this to happen!?", but I doubt that would be very effective.
Whether it is effective or not has absolutely nothing to do with the question, as you well know. Whether your moral construct allows you to stand on firm moral, logical ground is the issue.
References?
I would daresay that there are countless examples of evangelicals who believe that the Bible is authored by those it claims to be. I would go so far as to say that it is difficult to find someone in conservative evangelical/Catholic circles who does not believe it. All six Southern Baptist seminaries, which are among the largest in the world, a full of professors who believe it. But here are a few references to get you started.
http://www.carm.org/bible/biblewhen.htm
http://www.carm.org/evidence/gospels_written.htm
http://www.equip.org/free/DW035.htm
http://www.equip.org/free/DJ028.htm
I hope that you'll answer my question on 1 John 1:1-2 based on the C.S. Lewis "trichotomy", as you put it.
Ancient Greeks believed that they received messages from the gods through various signs.
You'll have to give me a specific example in order to answer that question. It is possible that they truly received messages, but I would suspect that they would be demonic in origin. In addition, considering that the Greeks gods were little more than amplified humanity, making no attempt to account for sinfulness and redemption of fallen man, it would be diificult to take them seriously.