|
Post by paulslaugh on Mar 22, 2023 9:39:31 GMT
Neither are your parents that The Bible tells you to honor..... Honoring your parents, the Caesars and Kings would not include worship because they are not God. That’s the point. Perhaps Jesus means to not worship him or God, but to honor them instead. Why would an omnipotent and omnipresent God need our pitiful worship anyway? What does he get from it? It's not like he doesn't know our true intentions 24/7 and exactly what state of belief we will be in at the moment of our death. He already knows if we are going to Hell or Heaven and whether you will have the change of heart he has in mind for humans. Just listening to him and taking his advice instead of praying for stuff or events to happen that's already set in stone. might be what he means.
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
|
Post by djorno on Mar 22, 2023 10:40:45 GMT
He was there when Jesus said those things. No, he was not. Well just about every bit of internal and external evidence available points John the apostle being the author. Btw I do not believe the GOJ was written 70 years after Christ.
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Mar 22, 2023 10:52:42 GMT
Well just about every bit of internal and external evidence available points John the apostle being the author. Btw I do not believe the GOJ was written 70 years after Christ. They can tell by the rhetoric and Greek style conventions of about when it was written. If indeed John of Patmos is John the Beloved Disciple, then how come he knows all these extremely complex Platonist details after Jesus had died, that Jesus himself did not see fit to disclose.
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
|
Post by djorno on Mar 22, 2023 19:06:11 GMT
Well just about every bit of internal and external evidence available points John the apostle being the author. Btw I do not believe the GOJ was written 70 years after Christ. They can tell by the rhetoric and Greek style conventions of about when it was written. If indeed John of Patmos is John the Beloved Disciple, then how come he knows all these extremely complex Platonist details after Jesus had died, that Jesus himself did not see fit to disclose. I personally believe the only reason liberal scholars date the GOJ late is because of a prophecy Jesus made about the destruction of the temple which went on to occur in 70AD. In other words they have a presupposition against the supernatural and figure Jesus couldn’t have made such a prediction therefore it must have happened well before the gospel was completed. For me all four gospels were likely out there circulating before 70AD. And we have better evidence and reasons for earlier dates than the traditional view.
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Mar 22, 2023 19:39:45 GMT
They can tell by the rhetoric and Greek style conventions of about when it was written. If indeed John of Patmos is John the Beloved Disciple, then how come he knows all these extremely complex Platonist details after Jesus had died, that Jesus himself did not see fit to disclose. I personally believe the only reason liberal scholars date the GOJ late is because of a prophecy Jesus made about the destruction of the temple which went on to occur in 70AD. In other words they have a presupposition against the supernatural and figure Jesus couldn’t have made such a prediction therefore it must have happened well before the gospel was completed. You are inserting your prejudice of scholarship upon the known data. The Temple falling is only one of the many issues in John that are contradictory to the other Gospels. Whoever wrote John, was a highly educated Greek gentile or at least a Hellenistic Jew like Paul. (There’s a thought.) The other Gospels do not mention such an educated person among Jesus’ disciplines and friends. And John is way out there using Platonic esoteric philosophy that is nowhere to be found in the more mainstream Jewish prophecy Jesus was preaching or in the OT. John the Apostle is listed as the son of Zebedee and Salome, a wealthy Jewish couple from Bethsaida in the fishing business. These are hardworking, but humble people. No particular book of the New Testament was canon or even being used by all scattered churches until the 3rd and 4th centuries. Anything could have made its way into a popular gospel being passed around and down and copied over and over, during those more free-wheeling days before the bishops started hammering out what would be Christianity at the end of the Western Roman Empire. It is possible this written by someone closer to Jesus’ time and was a personal interpretation. It is a magnificent work of Christology and more than the other Gospels, has captured the imaginations of those who could not be contained by the more conservative philosophy of Jesus’ righteousness. Of the fabulous four Gospel writers, John is the John Lennon. And then there’s Revelations! The Stephen King of his day.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Mar 23, 2023 2:12:31 GMT
I personally believe the only reason liberal scholars date the GOJ late is because of a prophecy Jesus made about the destruction of the temple which went on to occur in 70AD. In other words they have a presupposition against the supernatural and figure Jesus couldn’t have made such a prediction therefore it must have happened well before the gospel was completed. For me all four gospels were likely out there circulating before 70AD. And we have better evidence and reasons for earlier dates than the traditional view. The disciples were uneducated. Something interesting to think about is that early Christians weren't really Christians as we think of the word, they were Jews and it isn't clear they understood that Jesus was going to be the spiritual leader of a new religion. Being an early Christian was like being a parent, it didn't come with a manual and they had to figure it out. They didn't know what it meant to worship, what should be the same and what, if anything, should be different. Over time people got different ideas. Paul's seven letters are the earliest. The authorship of other letters bearing his name are in dispute. Paul was a Pharisee, and his writings reflect that tradition, but not everyone were onboard with that. Back in the day, like today, if you wanted something well written you hired a good writer. The gospels were written by scholars and represent different ideas, possibly sects of Christianity. Some don't agree with Paul, none really agree with each other, and that was the reason they were written. In the centuries that followed, many thousands of copies were made, mistakes were made, errors in translations, edits, little tweaks here and there. The Bible we have today is only an approximation of the original writings. There might still be more hidden away in the desert.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 23, 2023 19:14:28 GMT
They can tell by the rhetoric and Greek style conventions of about when it was written. If indeed John of Patmos is John the Beloved Disciple, then how come he knows all these extremely complex Platonist details after Jesus had died, that Jesus himself did not see fit to disclose. I personally believe the only reason liberal scholars date the GOJ late is because of a prophecy Jesus made about the destruction of the temple which went on to occur in 70AD. In other words they have a presupposition against the supernatural and figure Jesus couldn’t have made such a prediction therefore it must have happened well before the gospel was completed. For me all four gospels were likely out there circulating before 70AD. And we have better evidence and reasons for earlier dates than the traditional view. Hey look more stuff you actually don't have any clue about in the bible. Are you sure you are a Christian, this is starting to come off as a poe account.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 23, 2023 19:19:23 GMT
Hey look more stuff you actually don't have any clue about in the bible. Are you sure you are a Christian, In my experience, cluelessness about the Bible is one of the reliable signs of your typical Christian.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 23, 2023 20:41:36 GMT
Hey look more stuff you actually don't have any clue about in the bible. Are you sure you are a Christian, In my experience, cluelessness about the Bible is one of the reliable signs of your typical Christian. Yeah I think you may be right, generally speaking those that are most vocal about their faith are the least knowledgeable, djourno is willfully ignorant in this case. I think that the organisation of religion lends itself to having followers that do not have to put in their own work, not always the case, just frequently.
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
|
Post by djorno on Mar 23, 2023 23:11:57 GMT
In my experience, cluelessness about the Bible is one of the reliable signs of your typical Christian. Yeah I think you may be right, generally speaking those that are most vocal about their faith are the least knowledgeable, djourno is willfully ignorant in this case. I think that the organisation of religion lends itself to having followers that do not have to put in their own work, not always the case, just frequently. Ignorant about what exactly?
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 23, 2023 23:20:46 GMT
Yeah I think you may be right, generally speaking those that are most vocal about their faith are the least knowledgeable, djourno is willfully ignorant in this case. I think that the organisation of religion lends itself to having followers that do not have to put in their own work, not always the case, just frequently. Ignorant about what exactly? The contents and meaning of the bible
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
|
Post by djorno on Mar 23, 2023 23:24:03 GMT
Ignorant about what exactly? The contents and meaning of the bible Thank you for your opinion.
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
|
Post by djorno on Mar 24, 2023 0:00:47 GMT
I personally believe the only reason liberal scholars date the GOJ late is because of a prophecy Jesus made about the destruction of the temple which went on to occur in 70AD. In other words they have a presupposition against the supernatural and figure Jesus couldn’t have made such a prediction therefore it must have happened well before the gospel was completed. For me all four gospels were likely out there circulating before 70AD. And we have better evidence and reasons for earlier dates than the traditional view. Hey look more stuff you actually don't have any clue about in the bible. Are you sure you are a Christian, this is starting to come off as a poe account. Without appealing to authority, could you please explain in your words why you believe in the later dating of the GOJ? What is the evidence that convinces you?
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 24, 2023 1:16:10 GMT
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
|
Post by djorno on Mar 24, 2023 1:58:39 GMT
So just as I predicted…“because most historians say so” is what you’re offering? It’s also the “accepted narrative” that the Bible condemns homosexual acts as sin. But you’re only willing to go with the consensus when it suits you, right? The evidence for earlier dating is far more compelling imo:
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Mar 24, 2023 6:22:50 GMT
Guy in the video is basing his opinions on secondary sources and you can't date the gospels using secondary sources, it's impossible. Even with primary sources it's an educated opinion. There are too many unknowns. Predicting a building will fall down is a pretty safe prophecy, and it was during a time when Jews were pushing back against Rome which historically has little tolerance for rebellion so it's an even safer bet.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 24, 2023 10:28:50 GMT
So just as I predicted…“because most historians say so” is what you’re offering?
The evidence for earlier dating is far more compelling imo: So, when faced with a historical question ("When was GOJ written?") you scoff at the idea of relying on an answer determined by historians. Instead, you prefer a video that starts out with a false assertion about those historians. What false assertion? The claim that historians have "one main reason" for dating GOJ after 70AD - "Almost the entire late dating scheme is primarily based on" the conviction that Jesus couldn't really have made the prediction about Jerusalem. That's a demonstrably false assertion. Here is a link to a detailed analysis of the arguments made about the dating of GOJ. digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1117&context=sor_fac_pubsWhile you will find many varied points of argument favoring a post 70AD for GOJ, what you will NOT find is an argument that Jesus simply couldn't have made the prediction.
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Mar 24, 2023 13:49:06 GMT
So just as I predicted…“because most historians say so” is what you’re offering? It’s also the “accepted narrative” that the Bible condemns homosexual acts as sin. But you’re only willing to go with the consensus when it suits you, right? The evidence for earlier dating is far more compelling imo: We’re not saying one should follow the Bible as a moral guide for living that should also be inserted into our civil law because you say science is a scam. You are saying that. We’re deconstructing your argument to show how faulty it is. It doesn’t matter to me what the Gospel of John is saying to you on a spiritual or faith level, that’s your business. But you are claiming the information in John is the objective truth because it was written by John, son of Zebadee, who was also known as the Beloved Disciple, and knew Jesus intimately enough that the Jesus confided to him his true nature, that he was the Word God Incarnate, who created the Universe along with his Father God. If you want to believe that, fine, but do not use your faith to persecute science with.
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
|
Post by djorno on Mar 24, 2023 13:58:04 GMT
So just as I predicted…“because most historians say so” is what you’re offering?
The evidence for earlier dating is far more compelling imo: So, when faced with a historical question ("When was GOJ written?") you scoff at the idea of relying on an answer determined by historians. Instead, you prefer a video that starts out with a false assertion about those historians. What false assertion? The claim that historians have "one main reason" for dating GOJ after 70AD - "Almost the entire late dating scheme is primarily based on" the conviction that Jesus couldn't really have made the prediction about Jerusalem. That's a demonstrably false assertion. Here is a link to a detailed analysis of the arguments made about the dating of GOJ. digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1117&context=sor_fac_pubsWhile you will find many varied points of argument favoring a post 70AD for GOJ, what you will NOT find is an argument that Jesus simply couldn't have made the prediction. I feel you’re straw manning the video. The presenter says “many biblical scholars date Matthew, Mark & Luke past 70AD for one main reason. Jesus’ prophecies regarding the destruction of Jerusalem and it’s temple.” The point he was making was specifically about the synoptic gospels, as was I, not including the GOJ. Virtually everybody, believers and skeptics alike, agree that the GOJ is the latest of the four. It’s just that I personally, based on the internal and external evidence and argumentation, believe that the GOJ was likely written before 70AD. Here are some of those evidences and arguments why. coldcasechristianity.com/writings/johns-gospel-may-have-been-last-but-it-wasnt-late/amp/
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 24, 2023 14:14:33 GMT
So, when faced with a historical question ("When was GOJ written?") you scoff at the idea of relying on an answer determined by historians. Instead, you prefer a video that starts out with a false assertion about those historians. What false assertion? The claim that historians have "one main reason" for dating GOJ after 70AD - "Almost the entire late dating scheme is primarily based on" the conviction that Jesus couldn't really have made the prediction about Jerusalem. That's a demonstrably false assertion. Here is a link to a detailed analysis of the arguments made about the dating of GOJ. digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1117&context=sor_fac_pubsWhile you will find many varied points of argument favoring a post 70AD for GOJ, what you will NOT find is an argument that Jesus simply couldn't have made the prediction. I feel you’re straw manning the video. The presenter says “many biblical scholars date Matthew, Mark & Luke past 70AD for one main reason. Jesus’ prophecies regarding the destruction of Jerusalem and it’s temple.” The point he was making was specifically about the synoptic gospels, as was I, not including the GOJ. No "straw manning" on my part. I didn't ascribe to the speaker an argument he didn't make. I accurately cited it. Then I showed that it was the speaker who guilty of "straw manning". He said "Almost the entire late dating scheme is primarily based on" the conviction that Jesus couldn't really have made the prediction about Jerusalem. And my link showed that historians are not relying on any such thing. Any arguments about when GOJ was written hold no interest for me. I am in no position to dispute the general consensus of credentialed historians. But I will say that when someone, such as the video narrator, starts off with an assertion about his opponents that is quickly disprovable then the rest of what he has to say will not be trustworthy.
|
|