Firstly, you're mistaken.. I never once suggested to differentiate between what "John" quotes Jesus as saying and his accounts of Jesus. I'm questioning the validity of the entire book, as are most of todays theological scholars. Logic simply tells me that something's just different in his style of writing and his descriptions, plus his Gospel's the hardest to identify as authentic and the hardest to date. I personally have more trust in the synoptics, but that's me.. Like I said, I don't believe in the entire Bible, and I think that you assume me to be a particular denomination of Christian or something, in that you believe I must follow your format of thinking. And my question to you is why would you question what I believe and not the early churches? Where are the Gnostic Gospels and why did Protestants take books out of the Bible?
Question for Theists
- Thread starter n9newunsixx5150
- Start date
No, but this is Johns book telling how it was when jesus was around.
If I give you and another person quotes of a man and i told you to write a book tellin me what you get from the quotes about this man, will both of you have the same version of this man?
The Gospel of John is the fourth gospel in the canon of the New Testament, traditionally ascribed to John the Evangelist. Like the three synoptic gospels, it contains an account of some of the actions and sayings of Jesus, but differs from them in ethos and theological emphases. The purpose is expressed in the conclusion, 20:30-31: "...these [Miracles of Jesus] are written down so you will come to believe that Jesus is the Anointed, God's son — and by believing this have life in his name."[1]
Of the four gospels, John presents the highest christology, declaring Jesus to be God both explicitly and implicitly, according to Trinitarianism, see also Trinitarianism— Scripture and tradition[2]. Compared to the synoptics, John focuses on Jesus' cosmic mission to redeem humanity over the earthly mission to cast out demons and comfort the poor.
^ sounds no more jesus' story than johns story
Read Above
If I give you and another person quotes of a man and i told you to write a book tellin me what you get from the quotes about this man, will both of you have the same version of this man?
The Gospel of John is the fourth gospel in the canon of the New Testament, traditionally ascribed to John the Evangelist. Like the three synoptic gospels, it contains an account of some of the actions and sayings of Jesus, but differs from them in ethos and theological emphases. The purpose is expressed in the conclusion, 20:30-31: "...these [Miracles of Jesus] are written down so you will come to believe that Jesus is the Anointed, God's son — and by believing this have life in his name."[1]
Of the four gospels, John presents the highest christology, declaring Jesus to be God both explicitly and implicitly, according to Trinitarianism, see also Trinitarianism— Scripture and tradition[2]. Compared to the synoptics, John focuses on Jesus' cosmic mission to redeem humanity over the earthly mission to cast out demons and comfort the poor.
^ sounds no more jesus' story than johns story
Read Above
Emphasis mine
Two things pop into my mind after reading this. The first being is on what grounds do you have to say most theological scholars are questioning the validity of the book? The second thing that comes to mind is that you are sinking yourself over and over again. "Logic simply tells you that something's just different in his style of writing and his descriptions", yet that same logic suggests that one should not read or study the original scriptures and the languages they were written in...:dead: :dead: :dead:
Please, someone close this thread, because this guy is going to continue to bury himself over and over. I don't even need to make longs posts ripping him because he's doing it just fine with one or two paragraphs. :classic:
Two things pop into my mind after reading this. The first being is on what grounds do you have to say most theological scholars are questioning the validity of the book? The second thing that comes to mind is that you are sinking yourself over and over again. "Logic simply tells you that something's just different in his style of writing and his descriptions", yet that same logic suggests that one should not read or study the original scriptures and the languages they were written in...:dead: :dead: :dead:
Please, someone close this thread, because this guy is going to continue to bury himself over and over. I don't even need to make longs posts ripping him because he's doing it just fine with one or two paragraphs. :classic:
I just answered with a rhetorical reply. I know you're not a Muslim, but typically speaking, I would just have to Answer it was God Inspired.
Here's the Question ParkBoyz
Ok Here it is First Corinthians Chapter 8:6 But to us there is but one God, The Father , of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
See the Bold? See the resemblance?
Here's the Question ParkBoyz
Ok Here it is First Corinthians Chapter 8:6 But to us there is but one God, The Father , of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
See the Bold? See the resemblance?
What question?
Not good enough, you're just making one of those baseless statements that doesn't mean anything.. What are you trying to prove right here? What does speaking different languages have to do with interpreting your own language? You look so hard for things that you not only confuse me, but yourself.. And I've provided the link backing up what I said on what today's preeminent scholars think, but that's irrelevant. Try again...
Not good enough, you're just making one of those baseless statements that doesn't mean anything.. What are you trying to prove right here? What does speaking different languages have to do with interpreting your own language? You look so hard for things that you not only confuse me, but yourself.. And I've provided the link backing up what I said on what today's preeminent scholars think, but that's irrelevant. Try again...
Not true.
Who said anything about interpreting your own language? The link you posted/cited contains information about a group of people who learned the original languages, studied history, studied the climate at the time of the writings and presented their OPINION as to the HISTORICAL/LITERAL aspect of Jesus. If these people studied the languages how can you cite them as a source but also say:
How can you say these things yet post a link to a group of people who DID learn greek and hebrew, have OVER 21 years of experience in the language, but formed an opinion on something that you yourself deem meaningless due to not having the originals? Where is the logic in that? There is none.
No, I am not confusing myself, you are confusing yourself, and in confusing yourself you are attempting to confuse others, but I won't allow you to do so.
Since when did preeminent come to mean most, oh "Mr. 21 years of english experience?" And btw, I do have a STRONG rebuttal against the link you posted, and I might post it. I might sit on it. However, before I do I need to know why you avoided the questions that were previously asked?
Who said anything about interpreting your own language? The link you posted/cited contains information about a group of people who learned the original languages, studied history, studied the climate at the time of the writings and presented their OPINION as to the HISTORICAL/LITERAL aspect of Jesus. If these people studied the languages how can you cite them as a source but also say:
How can you say these things yet post a link to a group of people who DID learn greek and hebrew, have OVER 21 years of experience in the language, but formed an opinion on something that you yourself deem meaningless due to not having the originals? Where is the logic in that? There is none.
No, I am not confusing myself, you are confusing yourself, and in confusing yourself you are attempting to confuse others, but I won't allow you to do so.
Since when did preeminent come to mean most, oh "Mr. 21 years of english experience?" And btw, I do have a STRONG rebuttal against the link you posted, and I might post it. I might sit on it. However, before I do I need to know why you avoided the questions that were previously asked?
What exactly are you asking me? Yea, I do see the resemblance in wordage, but not meaning. Who ever wrote that decided to differentiate between God and Lord.. Jesus was the Messiah, of course he was Lord, why wouldn't he be? Who was above him besides the father? and Jesus didn't do all of those miracles on his own.. John even says this himself..
"I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me." - John 5:30
"I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me." - John 5:30
Wow, once again you kill yourself, Jesus simply states, that without the Father he is nothing, without Jesus, the Father could not even have made man, or the world, because there would be no foundation or Rock which Jesus was. I've been lenient and nice, unlike Heresy who has less tolerance for you. But I'm getting to the point of telling you to meditate, so go meditate.
What does the G stand for? God or ThaGoof, and please don't bring an evolutionary debate in a religious one, contribute if you like, but please...contribute.
What does the G stand for? God or ThaGoof, and please don't bring an evolutionary debate in a religious one, contribute if you like, but please...contribute.