Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2014 3:05:21 GMT -5
I posed the "Is the Book of Revelation fake? thread." The consensus was "Yes, the book of Revelations is fake." TMB readers said that John invented the whole thing, or was on drugs or something...
I sought to use Rev 2 and 3 as an account of Jesus. This was generally not accepted, despite the evidence that it shows Jesus in the same light as the Gospels.
So this leads to the next obvious question, COULD JOHN, HAVING INVENTED THE BOOK OF REVELATIONS, HAVE ALSO INVENTED THE GOSPEL NAMED AFTER HIM?
The logic of the "Yes" case in the previous thread was that the images John recorded were simply too fantastic to have real. Even those featuring the collapse of the Christian churches today were simply too fantastic to take on board.
But how fantastic is a story of a man who claimed to be the Son of God, who did all manner of miracles, including rising from the dead?
So, given that he is either a liar or a drug addict, DID JOHN FAKE THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2014 11:46:39 GMT -5
my simple answer is no....
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Apr 11, 2014 15:25:29 GMT -5
I suspect what you are asking is, did John write anything that he knew or suspects isn't literally true. That's like asking if Jesus's parables were fakes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2014 20:33:58 GMT -5
Put it this way - John wrote a book saying Jesus appeared to him on Patmos and showed him this vision. In John's Gospel he says Jesus appeared to him and showed him all these miracles and sayings.
If the former is fake, so too is the latter.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Apr 11, 2014 20:44:18 GMT -5
lol. Let me use an example I like. John's Gospel says Jesus died before the Passover, contradicting the Synoptics, who have Jesus eating a Passover meal. But John wrote after the others, so he knew he was contradicting them.
Why did he do that? Didn't he realize they couldn't ALL be "true" if he made a blatant contradiction like that?
Probably, he wasn't concerned about "truth" like you are. He had a story to tell, which encapsulated the message of Jesus (he wanted to present Jesus as the lamb of God, so Jesus died as the lambs were being slaughtered in the Temple), and that was more important than when Jesus really died.
The gospels are not history books. They are far more.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2014 21:21:26 GMT -5
I posed the " Is the Book of Revelation fake? thread." The consensus was "Yes, the book of Revelations is fake." TMB readers said that John invented the whole thing, or was on drugs or something... I sought to use Rev 2 and 3 as an account of Jesus. This was generally not accepted, despite the evidence that it shows Jesus in the same light as the Gospels. So this leads to the next obvious question, COULD JOHN, HAVING INVENTED THE BOOK OF REVELATIONS, HAVE ALSO INVENTED THE GOSPEL NAMED AFTER HIM? The logic of the "Yes" case in the previous thread was that the images John recorded were simply too fantastic to have real. Even those featuring the collapse of the Christian churches today were simply too fantastic to take on board. But how fantastic is a story of a man who claimed to be the Son of God, who did all manner of miracles, including rising from the dead? So, given that he is either a liar or a drug addict, DID JOHN FAKE THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN? ..... Hmmmmm Fake or drug addict .... Which one ..... Maybe neither ..
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 11, 2014 21:29:12 GMT -5
or maybe both, just had to say that, not really my thoughts...
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 11, 2014 21:56:32 GMT -5
lol. Let me use an example I like. John's Gospel says Jesus died before the Passover, contradicting the Synoptics, who have Jesus eating a Passover meal. But John wrote after the others, so he knew he was contradicting them. Why did he do that? Didn't he realize they couldn't ALL be "true" if he made a blatant contradiction like that? Probably, he wasn't concerned about "truth" like you are. He had a story to tell, which encapsulated the message of Jesus (he wanted to present Jesus as the lamb of God, so Jesus died as the lambs were being slaughtered in the Temple), and that was more important than when Jesus really died. The gospels are not history books. They are far more. Dubious Disciple ~ Now you just had to confuse us with the facts again? This article seems to deal with a similar argument between two well known theologians, William Lane Craig and Bart Ehrman, debating over the events leading up to the crucifixion and the resurrection of Jesus along with the inerrancy of scripture. I believe you will find it most enlightening to read in our present discussion for the points it brings to light. I especially noticed this question shown below from this article.
www.reasonablefaith.org/inerrancy-and-the-resurrection
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2014 21:59:05 GMT -5
No-one really believes the bible is inerrant. It simply can't be because some things are written twice, in contradiction. ie how David met Saul - two or three different accounts. The genealogy of Jesus - two different accounts.
I respect that after the information was compiled - IT WAS RESPECTED ENOUGH TO BE LEFT AS IT WAS - CONTRADICTIONS AND ALL.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 11, 2014 22:06:20 GMT -5
No-one really believes the bible is inerrant. It simply can't be because some things are written twice, in contradiction. ie how David met Saul - two or three different accounts. The genealogy of Jesus - two different accounts. I respect that after the information was compiled - IT WAS RESPECTED ENOUGH TO BE LEFT AS IT WAS - CONTRADICTIONS AND ALL. Bert ~ Thank you for acknowledging those points! However, you would be surprised how many people still hold to the premise that the Bible is inerrant throughout and it's man's interpretation that's so screwed up. Just check out this passage below with the underlined portions from a debate between two well known theologians as an illustration of your both our points. William Lane Craig actually gave some great replies to Bart Ehrman in this debate and it's well worth reading his responses for additional insights, too!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2014 19:00:15 GMT -5
I posed the " Is the Book of Revelation fake? thread." The consensus was "Yes, the book of Revelations is fake." TMB readers said that John invented the whole thing, or was on drugs or something... I sought to use Rev 2 and 3 as an account of Jesus. This was generally not accepted, despite the evidence that it shows Jesus in the same light as the Gospels. So this leads to the next obvious question, COULD JOHN, HAVING INVENTED THE BOOK OF REVELATIONS, HAVE ALSO INVENTED THE GOSPEL NAMED AFTER HIM? The logic of the "Yes" case in the previous thread was that the images John recorded were simply too fantastic to have real. Even those featuring the collapse of the Christian churches today were simply too fantastic to take on board. But how fantastic is a story of a man who claimed to be the Son of God, who did all manner of miracles, including rising from the dead? So, given that he is either a liar or a drug addict, DID JOHN FAKE THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN? So, in essence, you are asking if John was either a liar or a drug addict. Are those our only choices? Perhaps he was mentally ill, or delusional (which I personally don't believe). I think it's entirely possible for anyone to have a spiritual experience...Paul the apostle was blinded by the Light and led to those who pointed him further to Jesus and on to preaching/spreading the Gospel to places that were at the time unimaginable to receiving the Gospel. Daniel encountered angels. Was he on drugs or a liar? I'm also assuming he wrote the book of Daniel. I think it's entirely possible that he really did have angel encounters. The prophets WERE persecuted in their time for prophesying, if you will recall. And yet, there were kings who were unbelievers who paid attention to some of the prophet's interpretations and revelations. Joseph in the book of Genesis interpreted dreams; dreamed prophetic dreams. Having spiritual 'vision' is really nothing new.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Apr 14, 2014 23:28:36 GMT -5
I posed the " Is the Book of Revelation fake? thread." The consensus was "Yes, the book of Revelations is fake." TMB readers said that John invented the whole thing, or was on drugs or something... I sought to use Rev 2 and 3 as an account of Jesus. This was generally not accepted, despite the evidence that it shows Jesus in the same light as the Gospels. So this leads to the next obvious question, COULD JOHN, HAVING INVENTED THE BOOK OF REVELATIONS, HAVE ALSO INVENTED THE GOSPEL NAMED AFTER HIM? The logic of the "Yes" case in the previous thread was that the images John recorded were simply too fantastic to have real. Even those featuring the collapse of the Christian churches today were simply too fantastic to take on board. But how fantastic is a story of a man who claimed to be the Son of God, who did all manner of miracles, including rising from the dead? So, given that he is either a liar or a drug addict, DID JOHN FAKE THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN? So, in essence, you are asking if John was either a liar or a drug addict. Are those our only choices? Perhaps he was mentally ill, or delusional (which I personally don't believe). I think it's entirely possible for anyone to have a spiritual experience...Paul the apostle was blinded by the Light and led to those who pointed him further to Jesus and on to preaching/spreading the Gospel to places that were at the time unimaginable to receiving the Gospel. Daniel encountered angels. Was he on drugs or a liar? I'm also assuming he wrote the book of Daniel. I think it's entirely possible that he really did have angel encounters. The prophets WERE persecuted in their time for prophesying, if you will recall. And yet, there were kings who were unbelievers who paid attention to some of the prophet's interpretations and revelations. Joseph in the book of Genesis interpreted dreams; dreamed prophetic dreams. Having spiritual 'vision' is really nothing new. No, having visions aren't new.
We can go on many city streets today & see those with mental illnesses having visions almost any day.
It is just that in these days we recognize that their visions aren't imbeded in reality, they aren't "spiritual" visions, they are due to being "mentally ill."
We are fortunate enough today to know better how the brain works, and such instances that you mention are the result of that.
Never-the-less, it seems that some people would rather hang onto ancient concepts rather than to come into the 21st Century.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2014 13:07:27 GMT -5
Maybe John was a bit like musician/songwriter James Taylor. We have to sort of decipher why he wrote what he wrote and what it all means...love this song I'm posting here and love playing/singing it with my guitar. However, can't really say I know what it all means? If anyone else here knows what this song is really about, feel free to say so:
James Taylor – Carolina In My Mind
In my mind I'm gone to Carolina Can't you see the sunshine? Can't you just feel the moonshine? Ain't it just like a friend of mine To hit me from behind? Yes, I'm gone to Carolina in my mind
Karin, she's a silver sun You best walk her way and watch it shine And watch her watch the morning come A silver tear appearing now I'm cryin', ain't I? Gone to Carolina in my mind
There ain't no doubt in no ones mind That love's the finest thing around Whisper something soft and kind And hey babe, the sky's on fire I'm dying, ain't I? Gone to Carolina in my mind
In my mind I'm gone to Carolina Can't you see the sunshine? Can't you just feel the moonshine? And, ain't it just like a friend of mine To hit me from behind? Yes, I'm gone to Carolina in my mind
Dark and silent, late last night, I think I might have heard the highway call And geese in flight and dogs that bite The signs that might be omens say I'm goin', I'm goin' I'm gone to Carolina in my mind
With a holy host of others standin' around me Still I'm on the dark side of the moon And it seems like it goes on like this forever You must forgive me, if I'm up and gone to Carolina in my mind
In my mind I'm goin' to Carolina Can't you see the sunshine? Can't you just feel the moonshine? Ain't is just like a friend of mine To hit me from behind Yes, I'm gone to Carolina in my mind Gone to Carolina in my mind And I'm goin' to Carolina in my mind Goin' to Carolina in my mind Gone, I'm gone, I'm gone Say nice things about me 'cause I'm gone south now Got to carry on without me, I'm gone
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2014 12:45:11 GMT -5
.. I dunno , but maybe James Taylor was under the influence of drugs when he wrote that song/// if I recall correctly his drug of choice was heroin , but that was years ago
|
|
|
Post by xna on Apr 16, 2014 18:36:45 GMT -5
No-one really believes the bible is inerrant. It simply can't be because some things are written twice, in contradiction. ie how David met Saul - two or three different accounts. The genealogy of Jesus - two different accounts. I respect that after the information was compiled - IT WAS RESPECTED ENOUGH TO BE LEFT AS IT WAS - CONTRADICTIONS AND ALL. Tweet @god, he has 132k followers, one of them will know.
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Apr 17, 2014 11:17:50 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2014 13:42:08 GMT -5
By the looks of the review, it will be more of a challenge to those who support the concept of inerrancy since the professor debunks the (mainly) American idea of inerrancy. He states “We do not claim to have a perfectly flawless copy of any book of the Bible” (p.37). Sounds honest enough to me although it sounds like a subtle indirect suggestion of an assumption that there were once flawless writings around, which is not likely the case. He "affirms that all truth is God’s truth and thus we can learn from just about anything under the sun" (p. 78). Debunking the inerrancy of the bible and affirming that truth exists practically everywhere is actually quite a reasonable and moderate position to take. Like any book, the bible has its truths and its errors so it can shed light or cause stumbling. Readers need to discern the difference.
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Apr 17, 2014 17:01:01 GMT -5
CD I have had the privilege of having the full manuscript for the past few months after meeting with Professor Blomberg during his lectures in Dublin. I don’t disagree with what you write but while he comments on inerrancy he does not question the reliability of Scripture in supporting the doctrines that form the core of the Christian faith: ‘Particularly helpful is his demonstration that “every [English] Bible on the market today is sufficiently faithful in its translation so that its readers can learn all of the fundamental truths of Christianity accurately” (p.85).’
A few other helpful quotes from the review that are helpful are:
‘The extreme to avoid is a rigid definition of inerrancy that ignores the textures of the biblical books, the standards of the times at which they were written and leaves one fearful that if an error can be found, “The entire Christian faith might as well be abandoned” (p. 143).’
‘More to the point, the New Testament doesn’t read like mythology, “the alleged parallels with ancient fiction are dramatically exaggerated” (p.186), and widespread belief in Jesus’ resurrection occurred within a couple of years rather than centuries of the event itself. Blomberg concludes that miracles in both testaments fit into a few important categories. They are not random bits of wonder (p. 207), but demonstrations of God’s ultimate sovereignty, grace and sometimes judgment.’
‘At a time when the Bible is no longer believed in much of the West, we do well to heed another bit of Blomberg’s advice, “The stumbling block of ‘Christ and him crucified’ (1 Cor. 2:2) must never be excised from the faith” (p. 216). At the same time, we evangelicals and our attitudes must not become a stumbling block that overshadows the cross. If we believe the Bible, we should submit to its authority “by following Jesus in discipleship” (p. 225).’
This book is very readable,flows well and one that is thought provoking.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Apr 17, 2014 17:48:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Apr 17, 2014 18:14:27 GMT -5
This is a review of Craig Blomberg's previous book. Can we Still believe the Bible has just been published.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Apr 17, 2014 18:17:58 GMT -5
oh, my bad! Thanks, irvine.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Apr 18, 2014 9:39:55 GMT -5
I posed the " Is the Book of Revelation fake? thread." The consensus was "Yes, the book of Revelations is fake." TMB readers said that John invented the whole thing, or was on drugs or something... I sought to use Rev 2 and 3 as an account of Jesus. This was generally not accepted, despite the evidence that it shows Jesus in the same light as the Gospels. So this leads to the next obvious question, COULD JOHN, HAVING INVENTED THE BOOK OF REVELATIONS, HAVE ALSO INVENTED THE GOSPEL NAMED AFTER HIM? The logic of the "Yes" case in the previous thread was that the images John recorded were simply too fantastic to have real. Even those featuring the collapse of the Christian churches today were simply too fantastic to take on board. But how fantastic is a story of a man who claimed to be the Son of God, who did all manner of miracles, including rising from the dead? So, given that he is either a liar or a drug addict, DID JOHN FAKE THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN? Absolutely NO! I believe that perhaps if we want the biggest "truth" about Jesus we will find it in John's gospel and John's Revelations, simply because John was the Apostle whom Jesus loved and as human nature goes with one's best friend, more is shared then with the general run of good friends. I also feel that Jesus felt he could safely leave John with "more" about the kingdom of heaven etc and that John would willingly wait for the Holy Spirit to show him when to reveal these "truths" that Jesus had shared with him as his best friend. Now I think Revelations has considered John as the "bridegroom's friend" which is usually the groom's best friend...someone who has went the extra mile in dearth or song!
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Apr 19, 2014 19:59:37 GMT -5
Invoking Quantum Physics as a way to explain miracles! Ha! They're not the first to take the name of Quantum Physics "in vain!" Attachment DeletedLet's see the math all worked out, not just hand-waving and misapplication of words to imply that "miracles" can be accounted for using scientific principles.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 19, 2014 20:32:59 GMT -5
This is a review of Craig Blomberg's previous book. Can we Still believe the Bible has just been published. Dubious ~ In addition, there is the view that the person of Jesus was nothing but a religious myth around which a religion was built. A few books I have read in recent months put forth this theory, too. Here's one person who seems to adhere to this belief in the myth theory surrounding Jesus by the name of R. G. Price. He addresses a number of issues from the gospels that brings him to this conclusion. I'm also reading another book entitled, "Nailed" by David Fitzgerald which also holds to this opinion along with Richard Carrier, an authority in ancient history.
These men don't just argue over the Gospel of John, but the entire New Testament itself being a credible witness of Jesus as the Jewish Messiah.
www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm
(R. G. Price ~ "Jesus Myth - The Case Against Historical Christ"
www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzrIHdN9O7M
(David Fitzgerald ~ Nailed ~ (10 Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed At All)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwUZOZN-9dc
(Richard Carrier ~ Why I Believe Jesus Never Existed)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqlSuvAAjkM (Tom Harpur ~ "The Pagan Christ ~ Is Blind Faith Killing Christianity?"
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 19, 2014 21:38:06 GMT -5
Faune, do you believe Paul, the apostle was a myth person like Jesus? Nathan ~ I'm just commenting on what I have learned from my own study of religion and the historical backdrop of Jesus within the first century.There's actually more proof that Paul existed than Jesus, if you check these historical records going back to the first century.
That's the point I wished to make is that some belief the whole life of Jesus is based on myth and stories taken from ancient mystery religions and added to Christianity over a period of time. In fact, that's one reason it is believed that the RCC had a number of book burnings to hid the real history behind the early Christian beliefs surrounding Jesus of Nazareth that they didn't want revealed. The writings of the early Gnostics was at the top of their list for destruction and they did a fine job of it, except for those books that monks managed to carefully hid through burying and discovered centuries later in the mid-1900's.
The book I'm presently reading, entitled "Nailed," by David Fitzgerald, really goes into the historical evidence of record and you get to actually read the different source material relating to Jesus of Nazareth for yourself at the end of the book. This man was a devout Christian at one time before he started researching the historicity of the Jesus, in which he learned a lot of things he wasn't aware of previously. Needless to say, today he is an atheist as a result of his own discovery efforts. However, not all of these people became atheists as a result of their findings. Tom Harpur, author of "The Pagan Christ," who once was an Angelican priest, would probably be considered a "cultural Christian" today and views the Bible in a whole different light than he did in the past.
gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl.html
|
|
|
Post by xna on Apr 19, 2014 21:46:55 GMT -5
This is a review of Craig Blomberg's previous book. Can we Still believe the Bible has just been published. Dubious ~ In addition, there is the view that the person of Jesus was nothing but a religious myth around which a religion was built. A few books I have read in recent months put forth this theory, too. Here's one person who seems to adhere to this belief in the myth theory surrounding Jesus by the name of R. G. Price. He addresses a number of issues from the gospels that brings him to this conclusion. I'm also reading another book entitled, "Nailed" by David Fitzgerald which also holds to this opinion along with Richard Carrier, an authority in ancient history.
These men don't just argue over the Gospel of John, but the entire New Testament itself being a credible witness of Jesus as the Jewish Messiah.
www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm
(R. G. Price ~ "Jesus Myth - The Case Against Historical Christ"
www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzrIHdN9O7M
(David Fitzgerald ~ Nailed ~ (10 Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed At All)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwUZOZN-9dc
(Richard Carrier ~ Why I Believe Jesus Never Existed)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqlSuvAAjkM (Tom Harpur ~ "The Pagan Christ ~ Is Blind Faith Killing Christianity?" Thanks for the links, many I had not seen. It gives one a lot to consider. You would probably also be interested in watching the movie Agor, the historical drama about the life of the famous female philosophy and mathematics professor Hypatia of Alexandria. It tells what was going on with early Christianity, and the burning of the library of Alexandra. That was a sad time in human history, and for the role of women. The film was not shown in the USA theaters because no distributor could be found to promote the film because of it's controversial content. I have listened to many podcast interviews of Robert Price over the years. According to him biblical scholarship into the historicity of Jesus is all but been abandoned. www.imdb.com/title/tt1186830/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2014 21:52:21 GMT -5
O M G
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Apr 20, 2014 2:14:00 GMT -5
Faune, do you believe Paul, the apostle was a myth person like Jesus? Nathan ~ I'm just commenting on what I have learned from my own study of religion and the historical backdrop of Jesus within the first century.There's actually more proof that Paul existed than Jesus, if you check these historical records going back to the first century.
That's the point I wished to make is that some belief the whole life of Jesus is based on myth and stories taken from ancient mystery religions and added to Christianity over a period of time. In fact, that's one reason it is believed that the RCC had a number of book burnings to hid the real history behind the early Christian beliefs surrounding Jesus of Nazareth that they didn't want revealed. The writings of the early Gnostics was at the top of their list for destruction and they did a fine job of it, except for those books that monks managed to carefully hid through burying and discovered centuries later in the mid-1900's.
The book I'm presently reading, entitled "Nailed," by David Fitzgerald, really goes into the historical evidence of record and you get to actually read the different source material relating to Jesus of Nazareth for yourself at the end of the book. This man was a devout Christian at one time before he started researching the historicity of the Jesus, in which he learned a lot of things he wasn't aware of previously. Needless to say, today he is an atheist as a result of his own discovery efforts. However, not all of these people became atheists as a result of their findings. Tom Harpur, author of "The Pagan Christ," who once was an Angelican priest, would probably be considered a "cultural Christian" today and views the Bible in a whole different light than he did in the past.
gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl.html
As I read this posting I can not help thinking that so many start off with the view that the historical Jesus is a myth and then set out to read the materials that will support this view. Why not bring a bit of balance to your reading and include something like He walked Among Us by Josh McDowell or Who Moved the Stone by Frank Morrison and then see what you think? I thank God that on this Easter morning I can say that ' Because He lives I can face tomorrow' and without equivocation I believe what Paul wrote: [1] Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, [2] and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. [3] For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, [4] that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, [5] and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. [6] Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. [7] Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. [8] Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. (1 Corinthians 15:1-8 ESV)
|
|