It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
And you have responded exactly as I described above. Paul saw Jesus did he? What proof have you of that, and if the person you dislike the most came up to you and told you s/he met Jesus, I am sure you will believe it wholeheartedly.
Originally posted by dbrandt
Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
All nicely fit into a doctrine to show how Jesus had the ability to make unbelievers and evil men good. I have no doubt that those men existed, but they were not as being represented here.
Through christ the vilest sinner can be saved. Paul admits he was a murderer and thought of himself as the least of any. He actually did meet Jesus on the road to Damascus. Now my eyes have never seen Him literally, yet I believe. You don't understand how God can change a life.
The historical figure of R. Yehoshua bar Yosef cared nothing for Gentile Goyim whom he called DOGS: Go out and read Matthew chapter 15 for example when a gentile woman comes to him begging for his help.
He rebuked her with a sneer: (Matt 15:24 ) Iesous said to her "Woman, I was sent only to the Lost sheep ofthe House of Israel."
These are not the words of any universal saviour god. Paul had to try to make this racist Daviddic messiah acceptable to the goyim in the Empire (by twisting the words and theology of a man he never even met!).
You do realise, don't you, that John's Gospel is "midrashic theology" not sober historical court reporting. No one was there with a video camera catching the "ipsissima verba" of R. Yehoshua……..
He was accused of "leading Israel astray" probably by what later was regarded as False Prophecy i.e. pronouncements that never came true ("there are some here who are standing now that will not taste Death until they see the Son of Man coming into his Kingdom of Glory, on the right hand of the Power and all of his holy ones with him...")
But "Iesous" sort of left the accusation of Mamzerism to stand unanswered (at least in John's gospel) preferring to emphasise the spiritual authority he had as "the Prophet which was to come...spoken of by Moses"
In the years following his execution for Sedition against Rome, "Iesous" was accused by the Jewish authorities and Rebbes of many crimes, including Sorcery or Witchcraft
TextBut "Iesous" sort of left the accusation of Mamzerism to stand unanswered (at least in John's gospel)
And a good case can be made that the entire accusation of "born of Fonication" in John's Greek here may not have been about Jesus' "personal bastardy" at all.
according to John's gospel as it now stands, his answers seem to say, "never mind about the flesh descent, let's talk now about the spiritual inheritance: you're spiritual father is Belial, my spiritual father is YHWH etc.
YOU CLAIM: “ …Yet it is a fact that the four Gospel accounts (as we have them today) are, on the whole, remarkably consistent documents and generally agree on the basic essentials….In short, there are no glaring discrepancies between the Gospels (geneologies and chronology aside)…”
This is an oversimplifcation of the material with which we are here dealing
The Fourth Gospel ("John", which circulated anonymously for 200 years beffore someone put John the Elder on it) states his purpose quite clearly
“These things were written so that ye might believe that Iesous is the Christos and by believing ye might have life in his name”.
This is not the aim of an “historian” but rather the aims of a “propagandist” trying to push a specific “agenda”. In this case, to get readers and listeners to believe that "Iesous" is the "Christos".
This is the general aim of all FOUR canonical (“council approved”) gospels which make heavy use of HAGADDIC MIDRASHIC EXPANSIONS of the Old Testament to make their “points of history”,
Did Iesous miraculously start glowing on a hill (as with the Synoptic accounts based on Mark 9) with a “thundering voice” (in Aramaic QOL can mean Voice OR Thunder) emanating from the “cloud” or was there just a violent Thunderstorm with lightning flashes to which someone below in the crowd said “behold, it thundered, whereas someone else said, no, An Angel hath spoken something to him”? (John’s version)
Was there really a “wedding at Cana in Galilee” where water somehow was treated the way the wine god Dionysius treated water? Why does ONLY the Fourth Gospel relate it and the synoptics know nothing of it? (hint: Cana was a cult center for the Mysteries of Dionysius-Bacchus since before 200 BC)
John’s Gospel omits a large amount of material found in the synoptics, including: the “Temptation” of Iesous , and the Institution of the “Eucharist”. The fourth Gospel also make no mention of Ieosus casting out demons.
Large blocks of teaching such as the Sermon on the Mount and the so-called Lord’s prayer are not found in the Fourth Gospel. We are not dealing with a unified approach to writing a history of this man if you look at all closely at these differences.
In view of these no inconsiderable differences of fact between them, how can you say the four canonical (and “council approved”) Gospels are inherently consistent in any way shape or form?
The Gospel of “Luke” (whoever he was) places the “birth of Iesous” during a Roman “census” during the administration of “Quirinius” (in AD 6) whereas the gospel of “Matthew” (whoever he was) places the birth of Iesous during the reign of Herod the Great (who died in 4 BC) a historical discrepancy of at least 10 full years apart.
So….. when I say that the writer of the “gospel of John” (whoever he was) was not taking “historical dictation” in his relating of the “fornication argument” episode of Ieosus and the Judaean authorities, but rather making theological points in his exposition of the “event” there is some wider background behind my words here.