Have all Christians been duped? Evidence here.

Originally posted by Kapyong
You don't seem to get the POINT:
YOU claimed John relates to HIMSELF in the 3rd person.
That's YOUR claim.

Oh dear. Please stop using caps when you are not understood. It doesn't help. What I said is that the "writers" of the Gospel of John, refers to the beloved disciple in third person throughout the Gospel. Nowhere does the narrator (basing his/her/their writings on the first hand testimony of "The Beloved Disciple", one of Jesjuah's closest friends according to the book). It is not a claim. Like most of the other things I have written about here in this thread, this is an unquestioned fact, which is easily examined and confirmed, if people like yourself had actually taken the time to read what you argue against instead of spreading loose claims made by idiological enemies of the case at hand. Read the text and come up with one example where the Beloved Disciple refers to himself/herself in first person (other than the quote in the end of the book.

I'm not saying he used 1st person.
I am saying he is NOT referring to himself at all.
I am saying it's NOTHING to do with John.

You may be right, as I have stated throughout this discussion of the "Pope's Beard". What I said was that the majority of biblical scholars believe that "The Beloved Disciple" (the first hand source of this narration) is John. If you had followed me, you'd notice that I actually said that the beloved disciple may be Mary Magdalene, or even Lazarus (whose discribed as the disciple Jesus loves once in the book). Tradition and the majority of "intellectual Christendom" hold John as the "beloved disciple" since he is the only apostle not mentioned with name in the Gospel.

reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic

and what good is a dead Christ?

Your missing the whole point.

reply to post by Stormdancer777


No I'm not missing any ponts here. Gird up the loins of your mind -- and look beyond all magic and hocus pocus, signs and wonders, and you have a story which is closer to the truth. If Jesjuah had "died for us" all believers since his days would never have died. No he didn't "die so we could live", he was sentanced to be killed for being a punk basically and a political threat to Rome. He never died though, several other people gave or risked their lives to save the guy, and as we know, and as the text says, he was still alive three days after the crucifiction. Those who had heard his words and learned from them, saved his life. Love is the only thing that can save us from the sertain death. And Love is our God.

reply to post by MY2Commoncentsworth


First let me say I don't know how the Mods haven't shut you down yet. The things you say are just straight up hateful. Second you need to stop buying into religious prejudice. You cannot judge a whole people by the actions of fanatics. And before you jump on the "You must be Muslim nonsense, no I am not. I give as much of a crap about Muhammad as I do about Jesus. Which is zero if that's not clear enough for you. Christianity has just as much blood on their hands as Islam does. So perhaps you should just be easy. Eye for an Eye... world blind... ETC.

Stay Awake People!

By The way
I love the back and forth between the OP and Kapyong. This was probably one of best post I've read on ATS. Much respect to you both

Stay Awake People!

Originally posted by Illumin Not I
reply to post by MY2Commoncentsworth

 

First let me say I don't know how the Mods haven't shut you down yet.

The only person in this thread who acts and sounds like a militant and radical Islamist is MY2Commoncentsworth. It amazes me too. The guy is extremist. Ignored him a while back and haven't read his last words, but I doubt they are any different from his first ones.

Had I been Muslim and lied that I wasn't, I wouldn't be much of a Muslim. I would be a coward lizard with brooked fur.

As for the OP (seems I need a little disclaimer here): What I refer to in my OP and express later in the thread isn't nessasarily my personal belief or an expression of what I mean others should believe. I simply post here in order to bring about a good discussion. I am not interested in discussing my PRIVATE paith in God or the gods of my forefathers. So please be sensible and continue this discussion in a civil manner. Thanks.

Gday,

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic
Oh dear. Please stop using caps when you are not understood. It doesn't help.

Well, I am doing my best to help you stop 'not understanding', and sometimes caps help people to understand better - but it's a pity it didn't help you understand better in this case. Please try to read my comments more carefully in future, and that may help your understanding.

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic
What I said is that the "writers" of the Gospel of John, refers to the beloved disciple in third person throughout the Gospel.

Yes, I understand that point clearly.

Here is me, repeating YOUR point to show I understand :
Neo Christian Mystic claims the writer(s) of G.John referred to John in the 3rd person,
(implying John actually wrote it)

But YOU don't seem to grasp MY point - please respond like I did and actually quote and show you understand my point :

G.John refers to Lazarus in the 3rd person.
Does that mean Lazarus wrote it?
No.

G.John refers to Martha in the 3rd person.
Does that mean Martha wrote it?
No.

What you have is MANY people referred to in the 3rd person - including JOHN. But referring to someone in the 3rd person does NOT mean that person write the book.

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic
Nowhere does the narrator (basing his/her/their writings on the first hand testimony of "The Beloved Disciple", one of Jesjuah's closest friends according to the book). It is not a claim.

Nowhere does the narrator WHAT?
Your sentence didn't even finish with a point.

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic
Like most of the other things I have written about here in this thread, this is an unquestioned fact,

WHAT is a fact?
That G.John refers to John in 3rd person?
Yes - so what?

G.John refers to Lazarus in 3rd person - do you therefore claim Lazarus write it? No? Why not?

G.John refers to Martha in 3rd person - do you therefore claim Lazarus write it? No? Why not?

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic
which is easily examined and confirmed, if people like yourself had actually taken the time to read what you argue against instead of spreading loose claims made by idiological enemies of the case at hand. Read the text and come up with one example where the Beloved Disciple refers to himself/herself in first person (other than the quote in the end of the book.

I KNOW !!!
Why are you not actually READING my points ?!

Earth to Neo Christian Mystic - please READ this :
I KNOW that the author of G.John does NOT refer to John in 1st person.

I also know that the author of G.John does NOT refer to Lazarus in the 1st person.

I also know that the author of G.John does NOT refer to Martha in the 1st person.

MANY many people are referred to in the 3rd person - John, Martha, Lazarus, many others..

But for some strange reason, you pick ONE of these people who is mentioned in 3rd person only, and IGNORE the many others who are also only mentioned in 3rd person.

Why do you IGNORE the MANY other people who are ALSO only mentioned in 3rd person? Will you EVER address that point, Neo?

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic
What I said was that the majority of biblical scholars believe that "The Beloved Disciple" (the first hand source of this narration) is John.

Yes,
I KNOW that is what you said.
But
it is WRONG.
In fact the majority of modern NT scholars agree it was NOT written by John : Brown, Fitzmyer, Aland, Crossan, Schnelle...

Sure,
the majority of faithful BELIEVERS faithfully BELEIVE that faithful belief.

But modern NT scholars?
Nope.
They agree that NOT ONE of the NT books was written by anyone who ever met a historical Jesus.

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic
If you had followed me, you'd notice that I actually said that the beloved disciple may be Mary Magdalene, or even Lazarus (whose discribed as the disciple Jesus loves once in the book).

WTF?
Are you actually claiming they may have WROTE G.John ?
Seriously?

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic
Tradition and the majority of "intellectual Christendom" hold John as the "beloved disciple" since he is the only apostle not mentioned with name in the Gospel.

Hang on - you just said that Lazarus or Martha maybe the "beloved disciple" - which is it? Or do you just make up anything as you go?


Kap

Gday all,

It's odd how so many Christian apologists do that -
When someone argues against their claims, they tend to answer :
"No, you don't understand me, I said : blah blah blah", just repeating the claim and ignoring the arguments.

I understood Neo just fine, and answered his claims with argument showing he was wrong.

But all I got was a REPEAT of his original claim, without addressing MY argument at all.

Here is how to FAIL in response, Neo :
"Why don't you understand me, Kapyong?
I am saying that John only ever refers to himself in 3rd person.
Why don't you get that?"

I DO get it Neo,
and I answered with an argument that shows you wrong - that OTHERS are referred to only in 3rd person - it proves NOTHING.

Will YOU answer my argument?
Many people are referred to only in 3rd person in G.John - so what?


Kap


[edit on 18-7-2010 by Kapyong]

Originally posted by Kapyong
Gday,

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic
Oh dear. Please stop using caps when you are not understood. It doesn't help.

Well, I am doing my best to help you stop 'not understanding', and sometimes caps help people to understand better - but it's a pity it didn't help you understand better in this case. Please try to read my comments more carefully in future, and that may help your understanding.

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic
What I said is that the "writers" of the Gospel of John, refers to the beloved disciple in third person throughout the Gospel.

So much for reading carefully.....
In which reply did I imply that "John" wrote the given gospel? The "Gospel of John" is _dedicated_ to John, due to the facts I have stressed, that John is the only apostle whose name isn't mentioned throughout the gospel, therefore most bible scholars (not me) believe John is the source (_source_ not writer) hiding behind the title "the Beloved Disciple" refered to in the third person throughout that gospel.

Yes, I understand that point clearly.

obviously not

Gday,

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic
So much for reading carefully.....

So much for debating honestly ...

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic
In which reply did I imply that "John" wrote the given gospel?

Right here, 1/2 way down page 4 of this thread :

YOU wrote :
"and the only Apostle not mentioned by name is in the Golden Gospel is John, so most biblical scholars believe it is him. "

But you have also made the claim that it was written by the "Beloved Disciple" who could be various persons.

You also said :
"Well, the writer or mediator of the Gospel of John claims to have witnessed the long walk and the crucifiction."

That is simply NOT TRUE.


And now, you change your argument again to :

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic
The "Gospel of John" is _dedicated_ to John, due to the facts I have stressed, that John is the only apostle whose name isn't mentioned throughout the gospel,

Dedicated?
Like I said - not written by anyone who ever met a historical Jesus.
Not written by John.

What happened to :
"Well, the writer or mediator of the Gospel of John claims to have witnessed the long walk and the crucifiction."
?

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic
therefore most bible scholars (not me) believe John is the source (_source_ not writer) hiding behind the title "the Beloved Disciple" refered to in the third person throughout that gospel.

Rubbish.
Name 3 scholars who claim that.
Not faithful believers from long ago please.
Actual modern NT scholars.

What does "hiding behind" mean, exactly?

obviously not

You have changed you mind so many times, hard to keep up.
Everytime I show you are wrong, you pretend your claim was something different.


Kap


[edit on 19-7-2010 by Kapyong]

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic

Originally posted by Kapyong
Gday,

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic
Oh dear. Please stop using caps when you are not understood. It doesn't help.

Well, I am doing my best to help you stop 'not understanding', and sometimes caps help people to understand better - but it's a pity it didn't help you understand better in this case. Please try to read my comments more carefully in future, and that may help your understanding.

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic
What I said is that the "writers" of the Gospel of John, refers to the beloved disciple in third person throughout the Gospel.

So much for reading carefully.....
In which reply did I imply that "John" wrote the given gospel? The "Gospel of John" is _dedicated_ to John, due to the facts I have stressed, that John is the only apostle whose name isn't mentioned throughout the gospel, therefore most bible scholars (not me) believe John is the source (_source_ not writer) hiding behind the title "the Beloved Disciple" refered to in the third person throughout that gospel.

Yes, I understand that point clearly.

obviously not

As I recall, the Gospel of John refers to John as "the apostle whom Jesus loved".

But, in the Gospel of Philip, found at Nag Hammadi, it is stated that "Jesus loved Mary more than the other disciples and kissed her often on her mouth."

And, in the Gospel of Mary, found at Nag Hammadi, it is clear that Mary had certain Knowledge about the Teaching of Jesus which the male apostles did not have. In fact, that Knowledge was referred to as "strange teachings".

So, out of these three Gospels, which do you 'think' was considered to be the authentic Gospel?

Well, of course.

The Gospel in which the male followers of Jesus are made to look like Jesus loved them more--and that they knew more about the Teaching of Jesus than Mary did.

And even the Gospel of Thomas demonstrates that Thomas understood more about the Teaching of Jesus than did either Matthew or Simon Peter.

Can't have that.

Can't have people to understand that Thomas knew more about the Teaching of Jesus than Peter did.

That might be too difficult to 'market' effectively, if you know what I mean.

You know, like trying to introduce a new product in August, or something.

Gotta make some money at this.

Gotta say that the male apostles of Jesus really understood the Teaching of Jesus.

And Mary?

Mary who?

Oh, you talking about Mary the slut?

Didn't even write a Gospel at all.

Women don't understand these kinds of things.

Michael Cecil

reply to post by Kapyong


Back then only a very few people knew how to read or write. The _source_ of the Gospel of John was written by scribes, but the stories were recorded from "the Beloved Disciple's" words. Hence he is not named, but written to be a riddle. Read through what I wrote again, and please tell me where I said John wrote the Gospel of John. I have presented accepted theories about the _source_ or _mediator_ who told his story to one or several scribes. There would typically be a bunch of scribes to record the stories. This was how books were written in those days.

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic
and please tell me where I said John wrote the Gospel of John.

I DID.

YOU wrote this :
"and the only Apostle not mentioned by name is in the Golden Gospel is John, so most biblical scholars believe it is him. "

Now you LIE that you didn't.


Kap

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
Women don't understand these kinds of things.
Michael Cecil

Why is this dickhead still allowed to post his vicious crap here?


Kap

Originally posted by Kapyong

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic
and please tell me where I said John wrote the Gospel of John.

I DID.

YOU wrote this :
"and the only Apostle not mentioned by name is in the Golden Gospel is John, so most biblical scholars believe it is him. "

Now you LIE that you didn't.


Kap

I am stating an unchallenged FACT. Now where did you get the idea that this is my personal opinion? Had you read my posts you'd know that I believe the source behind the "Gospel of John" is either Mary Magdalene or Lazarus.

Originally posted by Kapyong

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
Women don't understand these kinds of things.
Michael Cecil

Why is this dickhead still allowed to post his vicious crap here?


Kap

Sarcasm my friend. I get the idea here that people who can't understand sarcasm, irony and calls people who quotes and/or refers to other people's research and opinions liars when they don't hold the same opinion for themselves, that such people have nothing to offer whatsoever. I don't believe that John wrote the Gospel of John for instance, and have on numerous occations here in this thread and elsewhere stated that I don't hold that opinion. Get over it, man.

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic

Originally posted by Kapyong

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
Women don't understand these kinds of things.
Michael Cecil

Why is this dickhead still allowed to post his vicious crap here?


Kap

Sarcasm my friend. I get the idea here that people who can't understand sarcasm, irony and calls people who quotes and/or refers to other people's research and opinions liars when they don't hold the same opinion for themselves, that such people have nothing to offer whatsoever. I don't believe that John wrote the Gospel of John for instance, and have on numerous occations here in this thread and elsewhere stated that I don't hold that opinion. Get over it, man.

Christians, of course, take a lot of pleasure in pointing out the degree to which modern Islam oppresses women; as if Christian theology was completely innocent of such a perversion. And it is a perversion

But, if someone asserts that the Gospels of Mary and Philip were excluded from the canon as a direct result of the male chauvinism of Paul and Peter; then, all of a sudden, he becomes something evil.

Of course, with a deep understanding of the Truth about the Doctrine of "resurrection"--something which, apparently, Peter did not have--it is understood that men are sometimes 'raised from the dead' as women and vice versa. In other words, one of the other implications of the Doctrine of "resurrection" is an absolute equality between the sexes.

Something which, obviously, a male chauvinist Jewish, Christian and Muslim religious establishment has absolutely no interest in whatsoever.

And, if someone suggests that Revealed Truth can be manifested in the beauty of a woman's body and its movements in a dance...

Well, there is simply no term for how evil that is.

(More sarcasm for "he who does not have the ears; and, so, cannot listen.')


Michael Cecil

reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic


Yes...it is probable that Christians are worshipping the Beast; actually, it is quite likely.

But, I would actually believe as more accurate that the vast majority aren't 100% sure what they are worshipping specifically with regards to their membership of a church and that the ultimate answer to that question can only be determined after the full prosecution of the war.

War clears all of this up.

Think of it like this...the Truth is the most precious object in the world and a person that has it for certain considers themselves rich. It should be no surprise then that waging war on its behalf is obligatory, to either protect it of acquire it.

Originally posted by bruxfinn
reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic

 

Yes...it is probable that Christians are worshipping the Beast; actually, it is quite likely.

But, I would actually believe as more accurate that the vast majority aren't 100% sure what they are worshipping specifically with regards to their membership of a church and that the ultimate answer to that question can only be determined after the full prosecution of the war.

War clears all of this up.

Think of it like this...the Truth is the most precious object in the world and a person that has it for certain considers themselves rich. It should be no surprise then that waging war on its behalf is obligatory, to either protect it of acquire it.

The "beast of the earth" is said to have two horns "like a lamb".

Lambs don't have horns.

What this means is in reference to Jesus as the "Lamb of God".

Christian theology passes itself off as if it is a teaching like what Jesus taught.

Christianity is not "like" what Jesus taught.

Christianity speaks "with the voice of the dragon"--that is, the "serpent", "Satan" and duality.

Michael Cecil