The thread that will never get a real answer

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Frira

 

There is a spot which was a dump in ancient times, there, and archaeologists have recovered old papyrus fragments that were remains of damaged books people had thrown away. I would have to believe there is an older traditional writing John is based on that was in circulation in the past and was probably replaced in common use by John which would have been more complete.

edit on 17-12-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

I suspected you knew of the fragment, but please remember two things:

1) I write for all involved. So if I take a few steps back to explain-- it is not because I don't think you have done your work-- I just try to remember to bring along those thread participants who have not yet dug into something.
2) I often follow your posts, because you are well read and reasonable. I do not always agree which makes it fun-- it challenges me and you have my respect.

reply to post by Frira

-- and THAT suggested a strong bias in member selection.

What I wanted to get at, to use your example, is that these people were not selected from unemployed people sitting around with no income and could be relied upon to give a negative view in the hopes of getting a pay check.
Now if NotUrTypical could point out an example from the members of this study, who would fit that description, then he could use that to show he was speaking from a place of knowledge, instead of ignorance and lack of argument and desperate for the sake of the cult to throw out just anything against what he perceives as the opponents of his party.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Frira

 

-- and THAT suggested a strong bias in member selection.

What I wanted to get at, to use your example, is that these people were not selected from unemployed people sitting around with no income and could be relied upon to give a negative view in the hopes of getting a pay check.
Now if NotUrTypical could point out an example from the members of this study, who would fit that description, then he could use that to show he was speaking from a place of knowledge, instead of ignorance and lack of argument and desperate for the sake of the cult to throw out just anything against what he perceives as the opponents of his party.

edit on 17-12-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

Of course we can never be certain of the motivation and intent of another-- while we can, sometimes, test for bias.

That holds for the members of the Jesus Seminar as well as it holding for NotUrTypical.

I am hopeful to stay out of that particular ongoing fray.

And yet... (ha!)

I agree with your characterization of the Revelation to John as a retelling of the same concurrent events-- different images to tell the same reality; rather than a chronological series of events.

As for the Millennialism view-- there are several views-- and each and every one of them is speculative. I believe I am correct that is so of even the most ancient.

That is to say that any church which has a doctrine regarding any one of them as being required to be believe has done so apart from the rest of the Church and so does so in division.

I know of no matter of salvation which is held to be contingent upon any specific formula by interpretation. That leaves the speculation wide open.

It is not as if we die to find ourselves handed a ScanTron sheet and a #2 pencil as Saint Peter says, "Please indicate the correct responses to the following Bible questions and their proper interpretation..."

reply to post by Frira

I just object to people saying, Because the world is going to end tomorrow evening (or whatever) that you must now behave in this particular manner in the light of this fact.

Paul had a sense of urgency but I see it as him wanting to proclaim the Gospel while at the same time understanding that a lot of these people will be persecuted or killed on account of accepting this, which places him in a position of responsibility, where possibly a particular person accepts, then gets killed while still not getting to a certain degree of holiness to be prepared for judgment, while if they maybe accepted later, on account of not having been told of it so soon, that they may have missed that particular persecution, and had been able to live out a normal lifetime to get to a better personal state to face judgment.
This is a little convoluted, maybe but the idea of what I am saying is there is a built-in urgency for Paul every time he preaches, that he could be causing his listeners to go to hell unnecessarily, so he emphasizes this idea of sanctification unto glorification so they will be prepared for a sped-up judgment in this soon-to-come opportunity for martyrdom.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Frira

 

I just object to people saying, Because the world is going to end tomorrow evening (or whatever) that you must now behave in this particular manner in the light of this fact.

Paul had a sense of urgency but I see it as him wanting to proclaim the Gospel while at the same time understanding that a lot of these people will be persecuted or killed on account of accepting this, which places him in a position of responsibility, where possibly a particular person accepts, then gets killed while still not getting to a certain degree of holiness to be prepared for judgment, while if they maybe accepted later, on account of not having been told of it so soon, that they may have missed that particular persecution, and had been able to live out a normal lifetime to get to a better personal state to face judgment.
This is a little convoluted, maybe but the idea of what I am saying is there is a built-in urgency for Paul every time he preaches, that he could be causing his listeners to go to hell unnecessarily, so he emphasizes this idea of sanctification unto glorification so they will be prepared for a sped-up judgment in this soon-to-come opportunity for martyrdom.

As I believe in God who is both just and omniscient, such choice cannot be a matter of our salvation.

This life is neither a test nor a preparation for a test. It is just this life, and we do the best we can with imperfect knowledge, imperfect understanding and the more we get it right, the harder it it often is on us-- but we try to transcend, we try to find God, and that is of no use at all unless it is God who finds us and it is God who draws us up higher.

If it were possible that I am wrong about that-- then nothing matters in terms of salvation.

I would not serve any lessor god. In fact, if god is not just, I will endeavor to kick his tail from here to Hell and back when I get my chance-- and I will have a lot of saintly company. For one thing, I had a great Daddy. If God doesn't meet even my Dad's standards in my eyes-- I not only will fight that god, I will win.

And you see, JMD, in my belief, that is Abraham's test of God, not the other way around. At the the risk of his son, Abraham put God's justice to the test. God passed. Now, at the risk of God the Son, God the Father puts our justice to the test. Like Abraham, we plead on behalf of others-- if we are just.

Now, with that said, I agree with you that the fear tactic form of evangelism is manipulative and lacks compassion. If someone offers me a god I must serve "or else" then, well, "Them's fightin' words!" I don't do ultimatums. And any god who approaches a relation with me beginning with an ultimatum, is going to know he was in a fight.

But that is not my God. My God has mystically taken me in His arms. He has led me with a gentle power-- allowed me to stray and followed so he could take me up again. He has said, "You have had enough-- now rest!" because it was me and not my work for which He cares. He knows I know Him-- He knows I seek Him, and He knows I know He found me. I'm temperamental, but He is constant. As long as one of us gets it right (and it won't be me) God and I will do right by each other-- and...

"All be well, and all will be well, and all manner of things shall be well."

reply to post by jmdewey60

Now if NotUrTypical could point out an example from the members of this study, who would fit that description, then he could use that to show he was speaking from a place of knowledge, instead of ignorance and lack of argument and desperate for the sake of the cult to throw out just anything against what he perceives as the opponents of his party.

Really now? I am 'speaking from ignorance' because I happen to agree with a certain position and that their arguments are more sound concerning a matter where there is no scholarly or historical consensus? Locations in Jerusalem in John are in the present tense, if the book was written after the destruction of Jerusalem or the siege in 66 AD these locations would have been addressed in the past tense. John makes no mention of James martyrdom and that happened in 52 AD.


I'll say it again, people hate John for it's declarations on theology, the critics come in, paid mind you, do everything to criticize the work therefore if we can cast doubt on if this really is God's Word or not, ("Yea hath God really said.."), then we can throw out any passages we don't like. And in the first chapter of John he declares that Jesus is God made flesh.

See, I'm usually a common sense type of guy..

The beloved disciple shows up with Peter on several occasions; belongs to a group of seven in 21:2 (Peter, Thomas, Nathanael, the sons of Zebedee, and two others)—and here, he must be one of the last four unnamed disciples; and nowhere in this gospel does John the disciple appear by name (even though he is named twenty times in the synoptics). This strongly infers either that the author of this work was absolutely unaware of John the disciple—a possibility which seems quite remote—or he was John the disciple.

Bible.org


lol

(7) Finally, there is a strong piece of internal evidence for an early date. In John 5:2 the author says that “there is in Jerusalem, by the sheep-gate, a pool (the one called Bethesda in Hebrew) which has five porticoes.” Without discussing all the interpretations possible for this verse suffice it to say that (a) the verb “is” ( ejstin) cannot be a historical present, and (b) the pool was destroyed in 70 CE.35 By far the most plausible conclusion is that this gospel was written before 70 CE.

Bible.org

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Really now? I am 'speaking from ignorance' because I happen to agree with a certain position . . .

You know that is not what I am talking about because we have gone over all of this before.
I am objecting to your insinuations which amout to personal attacks against the integrity of people not only you do not know, but have not even read any of their work as far as I can tell from the level of knowledge (or lack of) shown in your posts.
This shows a very poor demeanor and you lessen the prestige of Christianity by your example and you add nothing to raise it, being not learned in the issues but seem to be merely repeating what your cult leader tells you.

reply to post by jmdewey60

You know that is not what I am talking about because we have gone over all of this before.

You're lying again, we've never discussed the dating or authorship of the Gospel of John. So, please, again, explain how I am 'arguing from ignorance' when I have read the pros and cons from critics and conservative scholars and the arguments for the conservative historical record is more rational and logical. There are simple reasons why the Gospel of John is different from the synoptic gospels. There is a very simple reason why 2 Peter is different from 1 Peter et cetra.

I'll say it again, people hate John for it's declarations on theology, the critics come in, paid mind you, do everything to criticize the work therefore if we can cast doubt on if this really is God's Word or not, ("Yea hath God really said.."), then we can throw out any passages we don't like. And in the first chapter of John he declares that Jesus is God made flesh.

Yes, it needs said again. People hate John because of the theological declarations John makes. And they especially hate John 3:16.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

You're lying again, we've never discussed the dating or authorship of the Gospel of John.

Your modus operandi is to deflect the discussion from your earlier statements when they are called into question.
The topic of my criticism of your posts is your treatment of biblical scholars who you project onto the most vile of personal qualities, all without the slightest amount of justification other that you disagree with their conclusions on things you have little or no knowledge of yourself, and this has been brought up by me to you before.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

You're lying again, we've never discussed the dating or authorship of the Gospel of John.

Your modus operandi is to deflect the discussion from your earlier statements when they are called into question.
The topic of my criticism of your posts is your treatment of biblical scholars who you project onto the most vile of personal qualities, all without the slightest amount of justification other that you disagree with their conclusions on things you have little or no knowledge of yourself, and this has been brought up by me to you before.

They are CRITICS it's their job to criticize and discredit. That is a conflict of interest. I can't criticize the critics?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

I have to reject the idea that there is yet no kingdom

His kingdom is in heaven. Jesus Himself said His kingdom was not of this world. We are awaiting Him and the arrival of His kingdom on Earth. Where He will rule and reign for 1,000 years.

my friend..

The kingdom of heaven is at hand...

Matthew

It is within... and without

"At hand" doesn't mean "present". "At hand" means it was beginning at the time Christ said that. His kingdom is not of this world. And don't claim it's "within" and "without", that was taken from a 4th century Gnostic text.


"Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence." ~ John 18:36


From His own mouth, His kingdom is not of this world.

Yet.

Fair enough... Though keep in mind i am not Christian. So i can use whatever text i chose to show what i say...

But if you wish i will play on your terms...

WITHIN...

20And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:

21Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

Luke 17

And WITHOUT...

39And the Lord said unto him, Now do ye Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter; but your inward part is full of ravening and wickedness.

40Ye fools, did not he that made that which is without make that which is within also?

Luke 11

Hows that?

Straight from "his" mouth.... as you said

"Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence." ~ John 18:36

I should point out that this is a chastisement, a rebuke!

If his kingdom was of THIS world, wouldn't his servants fight that he would not be delivered to the Jews?

How many of your Brothers and Sisters have to be imprisoned, left to go hungry, to die in senseless wars?

If you love him you love the least of these HIS brothers and sisters.

Do you go to the prisons and visit and comfort even the most despised?

Why are you still fighting servants of Christ?

Fight the real enemy. The iniquities of THIS world. That Christ's kingdom may come.

Whose world do you belong to, the old world, or Christ's kingdom?

Make the choice.

With Love,

Your Brother

Originally posted by WakeUpRiseUp
Prove god is real and that you dont believe in fairy tales.

What proof will suffice for you?

With Love,

Your Brother

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to [url= by NOTurTypical[/url]

 

You're lying again, we've never discussed the dating or authorship of the Gospel of John.

Your modus operandi is to deflect the discussion from your earlier statements when they are called into question.
The topic of my criticism of your posts is your treatment of biblical scholars who you project onto the most vile of personal qualities, all without the slightest amount of justification other that you disagree with their conclusions on things you have little or no knowledge of yourself, and this has been brought up by me to you before.

They are CRITICS it's their job to criticize and discredit. That is a conflict of interest. I can't criticize the critics?

Sigh.......dishonest to the last

Scholars are not critics............a scholar is one who studies towards a profound level of knowledge in a particular area.

And in this case the area is the Bible, and as has been shown to you, the majority of biblical scholars do not believe that John or any other eyewitness wrote the gospel of john.

So it almost certainly was not 'from his own mouth'

Originally posted by Prezbo369

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to [url= by NOTurTypical[/url]

 

You're lying again, we've never discussed the dating or authorship of the Gospel of John.

Your modus operandi is to deflect the discussion from your earlier statements when they are called into question.
The topic of my criticism of your posts is your treatment of biblical scholars who you project onto the most vile of personal qualities, all without the slightest amount of justification other that you disagree with their conclusions on things you have little or no knowledge of yourself, and this has been brought up by me to you before.

They are CRITICS it's their job to criticize and discredit. That is a conflict of interest. I can't criticize the critics?

Sigh.......dishonest to the last

Scholars are not critics............a scholar is one who studies towards a profound level of knowledge in a particular area.

And in this case the area is the Bible, and as has been shown to you, the majority of biblical scholars do not believe that John or any other eyewitness wrote the gospel of john.

So it almost certainly was not 'from his own mouth'

Sorry, but you cannot force me to believe that an appeal to popularity is a logical argument. It's not, it's a fallacy. You've tried to slip it in twice now, it's just as fallacious as it was the first time. And you have critical scholars and conservative scholars. And I've already shown that there is no consensus amongst scholars.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Prezbo369

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to [url= by NOTurTypical[/url]

 

You're lying again, we've never discussed the dating or authorship of the Gospel of John.

Your modus operandi is to deflect the discussion from your earlier statements when they are called into question.
The topic of my criticism of your posts is your treatment of biblical scholars who you project onto the most vile of personal qualities, all without the slightest amount of justification other that you disagree with their conclusions on things you have little or no knowledge of yourself, and this has been brought up by me to you before.

They are CRITICS it's their job to criticize and discredit. That is a conflict of interest. I can't criticize the critics?

Sigh.......dishonest to the last

Scholars are not critics............a scholar is one who studies towards a profound level of knowledge in a particular area.

And in this case the area is the Bible, and as has been shown to you, the majority of biblical scholars do not believe that John or any other eyewitness wrote the gospel of john.

So it almost certainly was not 'from his own mouth'

Sorry, but you cannot force me to believe that an appeal to popularity is a logical argument. It's not, it's a fallacy. You've tried to slip it in twice now, it's just as fallacious as it was the first time. And you have critical scholars and conservative scholars. And I've already shown that there is no consensus amongst scholars.

An appeal to popularity would be me saying "X is true because most people (the general population) hold it to be true", but this is not what I've been saying...........and I'm fairly sure you're aware of this.

|

reply to post by Prezbo369

the majority of biblical scholars do not believe that John or any other eyewitness wrote the gospel of john.

Wrong, you claimed a "majority" of scholars agree that John wasn't written by John.


That's an appeal to numbers argument. It's irrelevant if a majority of scholars agreed with that or likewise rejected that.

And I've previously shown here in this thread that there is no consensus as to the authorship of John. Since there is no consensus it's easy to read the pros and cons for John's authorship and the conservative date arguments are better arguments than the ones the critics make for a late date.

Originally posted by WakeUpRiseUp
Prove god is real and that you dont believe in fairy tales.

Let me start with the fact about God whose name is Jesus, you are correct that we can not see Jesus in this life as we know it.
He can not be physically touch, smelled, tasted, heard or seen.
Though some have heard the Holy Spirit, seen the effects of the Holy Spirit or one of God's angels, smelled a sweet smell of the Holy Spirit.

But as for you statement if proof is for you a physical sense then proof is not obtainable just as with the lie called the theory of evolution.

Though there really is only two possibilities on how we have came into being.

1. As mainstream science has come to propagate nothing for no reason at all with out intelligence did it all.............Faith based religion.

2. A super natural power who is not bound by time and is able to create everything as he stated in the words of the Holy Bible, and yes not all of his words have been added to the Bible yet he did say to search the scriptures.

Now if you believe that intelligence and intricate organization can come from nothing you have a great
faith as you can not prove that,

yet it has been proved 1000's of times over that all created useful things are created by an intelligence, that nothing can not do it no matter how much time is given.