It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is John still alive?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 08:42 PM
link   
The mixing-up of names was common. I mean hasn't it been proven that Jesus' name was really Joshua?




posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by only onus
The mixing-up of names was common. I mean hasn't it been proven that Jesus' name was really Joshua?


Correct, the Hebrew name Yashua is translated Joshua. Funny how there was no problem translating it right in the Old Testament.

As for who WROTE the book of Revelation, consider, when a secretary takes dictation, certainly she is WRITING, but she is not AUTHORING. For the believer then, the question of who was taking dictation is technically irrelevant. While for the unbeliever, the hunt for the secretary never ends.



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 10:54 PM
link   
The Letter J is only 500 yrs old. This letter still is not in the hebrew alphabet or greek for that matter. "Jesus"we get this name Jesus which is greek- latin, a hybrid name, its a man - made name. sounds to much to me like " Zeus" who was a greek God. Why not just use his hebrew name?
Why even use this name " Jesus" its not english. Joshua sounds nothing like Jesus. Sounds more like Yehoshua. The English name for Joshua.
Our " J" came from the letter" "I" an was not commenly used until about the 1700`s.
1611 K J does not use this they use a latin name, for Jesus. but thats what we all know him by so I suppose that we can all just use this name.
I dont think she/ he would mind



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 10:57 PM
link   
They had a big problem tanslating hebrew into greek, then Latin. Why do you think they came out with a revised K J?
50,000 errors are alot of " opps"
I personally think Sir fransic Bacon had it right !( the 32 degree mason)



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 11:05 PM
link   
oh, puhleez!

you think I am confused about the difference between dictation and authorship?

if you must resort to that sort of insult then, there has been no refutation of my comment so, it stands. Thank you!



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIIIThe bible... thats where I got it, to answer your question. Personal attacks are the resort of those who have nothing better to offer in response, they are not flattering to the attacker, and do not reflect anything about the target, but are only reflecting the views of the attacker.


Well I apologize for the
comment but I thought it total loopy, but it seems that you are not the only one that thinks this,







The Beloved Disciple and the Author of the Fourth Gospel:

John? (and which John?) OR possibly a woman?


Nowhere in the Fourth Gospel is the author or the Beloved Disciple explicitly identified by name. There has been considerable speculation and controversy regarding the identity of both the author and the Beloved Disciple ever since authorship by the apostle John was first proposed at the end of the 2nd century. (For further details see Werner Goerg Kummel's Introduction to the New Testament, Nashville: Abingdon, 1975, pages 196-199, or the many excellent commentaries on the Fourth Gospel, including those by Bernard, Barrett, Brown, or Schnackenburg listed below.) The evidence is still being weighed and discussed, and there are wide differences in conclusions among highly qualified scholars.

A number of Bible scholars and theologians are exploring quite seriously or are adopting publicly the conclusion that a woman was the Beloved Disciple and that a woman was the source of the gospel that came to be known as "The Gospel of John,"





Very interesting indeed. I always knew there was controversy on the actual author, but this really is out there in my opinion.


EDIT oops

LINK

[edit on 29-8-2005 by edsinger]



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 12:59 AM
link   
very good Ed... :w: I like the page you have there. thats very interesting.
I have search to an found some good pages.
So John could have very well of been a woman?hmmmm:w:



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by only onus
I Have read the passages ofMat. 16;28, Mark 9;1, Luke 9;27, where Jesus says (living bible)"some of you standing here will live to see the kingdom of GOD arive". In these three books there are similarities, but these verses are eerirly simular. It is even reitterated in the book of Morman 3 Nephi 28;6-7. Does anyone think that there really are people(apositals maby) who knew Jesus, still alive?


It's only because we have forgotten the origins of Christianity that this poses a problem.

If we recognize that Paul's Christ was not a flesh and blood human, but rather, was spiritual, and we further realize that it is rooted in the astronomical significance of the dawning of the age of Pisces in the first century, then we can start to understand the evolution of the rest of the myth.

The kingdom was the new astrological age of Pisces, which happened during the first century (somewhat ambiguous as to exact date since it depends on how you affix the change). The gospel stories contain bits and pieces of this earlier myth, including the imminent kingdom.



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 08:42 PM
link   
The Beloved Disciple and the Author of the Fourth Gospel:

John? (and which John?) OR possibly a woman?


Nowhere in the Fourth Gospel is the author or the Beloved Disciple explicitly identified by name.

John 19:20-24 John admits he is the one being talked about.
Back to the origanal question tho. Does anybody think he/she is still physically alive?




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join