Page 14 of 18

Re: i am a evangelical christian

Posted: Fri May 01, 2009 10:16 pm
by cslewislover
The Gospel of John was written 80 years after Jesus' time, and so were the letters. You can find that information from the link I gave you on the Godandscience forum. Can you honestly say something is fact if it is written 80 years after an event?
Why not? John was the witness, he saw the things himself, and he wrote it himself. Why shouldn't I believe him? I think it would be incredibly reasonable to think that he repeated what he had witnessed many times before he wrote that gospel. It's even possible that he had lots of notes that he had written down, too, before he wrote the formal gospel. There's no problem at all.
And, we could very well argue the contents of the ancient writings you cite. The Illiad is considered to have the greatest historical manuscript authority outside of the NT (yes, the NT has the greatest manuscript authority out of all historical documents), and the earliest copy of it was composed 500 years after the original. Aristotle's document copies are from over 1000 years later (!). So yes, if I just wanted to argue about these things, simply because of transmission issues, I could.
The Iliad does not dictate to us the outlandish claims of the Bible, everlasting lie, God's son died for our sins etc, and we do (well I don't) not believe in the mythology of the Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Greek that Homer talks about.
. . . you keep talking about belief in things again, and not the documents themselves. OK. Let's forget about the documents. LOL. I would have to present to you why I believe what the authors say. Geesh.
Claiming it is the Lord who has caused me to experience Love and Joy is a way of forcing your beliefs on me.
Actually, that was not my intention. I wasn't thinking about it that way when I wrote it. The point is, you can't force your nonbelief on me by saying what I claim is untrue. That's what was on my mind.
Humans are at times weak, selfish etc., and that is being human, when we love and are kind I dont believe (obviously) that it is a benevolent God responsible, but humanity. When we are weak and selfish do you think it is God, satan or humans that are responisble?
We can love, yes, and there are different kinds of love. We were made to love; it's a big part of our nature. I think unconditional love is pretty impossible, but sometimes we come near it. I was also thinking that at times we can achieve pure love - that certain times our motives are wholly unselfish - but that it's not "always" by any means. There are times where a pure type of love comes out. I think it's actually pretty complicated, about our nature and about God's role in it. When we are weak and selfish, which is often, I think it is our fallen nature. I think Satan has influenced us humans through time, yes, and he influences us personally. But I'm sure you'll just make fun of me for that. God lets things happen since he can see the overall picture, involving everyone through time - something we can't possibly do. He makes good come out of bad, and often the good seems stronger because of the bad. We are better athletes because of the painful and boring training we go through.

Re: i am a evangelical christian

Posted: Fri May 01, 2009 10:37 pm
by munsterdevil
Cslewislover
Why not? John was the witness, he saw the things himself, and he wrote it himself. Why shouldn't I believe him? I think it would be incredibly reasonable to think that he repeated what he had witnessed many times before he wrote that gospel. It's even possible that he had lots of notes that he had written down, too, before he wrote the formal gospel. There's no problem at all.
Why didn't John write immediately after Jesus' death? Historical studies have discovered that the author was probably anonymous and was not a Jew. Some sources of the Bible claim that John withnessed the Crucifiction, yet the Gospel of John never mentions the Hill Of Calvary....strange. All the Apostles believed Jesus to be a man, yet The Gospel of John claimed him to be a God. Evidence suggests that John did not write it.
I think Satan has influenced us humans through time, yes, and he influences us personally. But I'm sure you'll just make fun of me for that
I would disagree with you but I would not make fun of you.

Re: i am a evangelical christian

Posted: Sat May 02, 2009 6:40 am
by cslewislover
munsterdevil wrote:Cslewislover
Why not? John was the witness, he saw the things himself, and he wrote it himself. Why shouldn't I believe him? I think it would be incredibly reasonable to think that he repeated what he had witnessed many times before he wrote that gospel. It's even possible that he had lots of notes that he had written down, too, before he wrote the formal gospel. There's no problem at all.
Why didn't John write immediately after Jesus' death? Historical studies have discovered that the author was probably anonymous and was not a Jew. Some sources of the Bible claim that John witnessed the Crucifixion, yet the Gospel of John never mentions the Hill Of Calvary....strange. All the Apostles believed Jesus to be a man, yet The Gospel of John claimed him to be a God. Evidence suggests that John did not write it.
There was no reason for him to write it right away. Their society was much different than ours, writing being a lot less common.

John wrote his gospel after the others, and it is definitely different (the other three, being very similar, are called the Synoptic Gospels). He didn't leave things out because he didn't believe them, he left them out because they weren't necessary to write. He gave his purpose for writing this latter gospel (20:31), and admitted he didn't include everything (20:30). The other gospels already covered the crucifixion and other things; John's was written to actually cover things that had been left out of the others. In the Archaeological Study Bible I have, it says that John's audience were the non-Jewish believers who struggled with the popular Greek philosophies, that is Gnosticism, that claimed Jesus was divine, but not human. John's letters also deal with this issue.

I'm going to go ahead and quote what this study bible says about the dating and authorship of the gospel of John (p 1718). The authorship aspect is very short, and I'd like to look up some other sources later.


"The author of this book claimed to have been a disciple of Jesus and a trustworthy witness of the things he described (21:24). Most readers take for granted that his identification with the 'disciple whom Jesus loved' (21:20), and epithet applied to John, son of Zebedee, since the earliest traditions of the church.

John's Gospel is usually dated very late--toward the end of the century--but there are reasons for believing that it was actually written much earlier. The John Rylands Papyrus* suggests that John was already in wide circulation during the second century A.D. . . . Some have even proposed a date prior to the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70 . . . . It has been suggested that John may have written from Ephesus.

Those who advocate an early date for John's Gospel see no implication anywhere in the book that Jerusalem and the temple had already been destroyed. In fact, John's presentation of Jesus' cleansing of the temple, and his claim that Jesus' body is the true temple (ch 2), would have been surprising had that edifice already been destroyed. On the contrary, nothing would have served as better vindication of Jesus' condemnation of the corruption at the temple and of his claim to have supplanted it in his own person. More than that, at 2:21, immediately after having reported that Jesus spoke of the destruction of 'this temple,' John, had he been writing after A.D. 70, would have ignored a perfect opportunity to point to the desolation of the Jerusalem temple when he instead clarified that Jesus was speaking of his own body."

* This papyrus "is the oldest copy yet discovered of any portion of the New Testament, dating back to the first half of the second century A.D." (ASB p. 1755). It was from Egypt, so the Gospel of John was already there and being read at this early date, and this after it was copied and transferred to Egypt, which could have taken quite a few years, even up to 30.

Re: i am a evangelical christian

Posted: Sat May 02, 2009 4:21 pm
by munsterdevil
John wrote his gospel after the others, and it is definitely different (the other three, being very similar, are called the Synoptic Gospels). He didn't leave things out because he didn't believe them, he left them out because they weren't necessary to write. He gave his purpose for writing this latter gospel (20:31), and admitted he didn't include everything (20:30). The other gospels already covered the crucifixion and other things; John's was written to actually cover things that had been left out of the others. In the Archaeological Study Bible I have, it says that John's audience were the non-Jewish believers who struggled with the popular Greek philosophies, that is Gnosticism, that claimed Jesus was divine, but not human. John's letters also deal with this issue.
This to me is problematic, as it just sounds too convenient, that another piece of the jigsaw should arrive to further the Churches claim to make Jesus Godlike. Some of the events that 'John' covered are not in the other three Gospels, why is this? The Gospel of John was written in about 80AD, this would have made John about 75 years of age give or take at the time of writing. If you areached the age 60 you were doing well in this era, 70 was not impossible, but to write a memoir on something 50 years would be extreme.
John's Gospel is usually dated very late--toward the end of the century--but there are reasons for believing that it was actually written much earlier. The John Rylands Papyrus* suggests that John was already in wide circulation during the second century A.D. . . . Some have even proposed a date prior to the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70 . . . . It has been suggested that John may have written from Ephesus.
But this piece of papyrus has also been disputed Vicki, Andreas Schmidt, for example, in comparing different forms of handwriting actually places the date of the papyrus at around 170 AD. Most other non-biblical scholars would place it in 90AD and most New Testament Scholars would disagree, but this again goes back to my point on being biased and unbiased on each side. You might believe (and you might be indeed right), that you are analyzing something the correct way, but the prcocess could be flawed. That goes for all sides.
This papyrus "is the oldest copy yet discovered of any portion of the New Testament, dating back to the first half of the second century A.D." (ASB p. 1755). It was from Egypt, so the Gospel of John was already there and being read at this early date, and this after it was copied and transferred to Egypt, which could have taken quite a few years, even up to 30.
The dates you have given me here still places the Gospel of John circa 80AD, or even later.

Re: i am a evangelical christian

Posted: Sat May 02, 2009 5:38 pm
by cslewislover
munsterdevil wrote:
John wrote his gospel after the others, and it is definitely different (the other three, being very similar, are called the Synoptic Gospels). He didn't leave things out because he didn't believe them, he left them out because they weren't necessary to write. He gave his purpose for writing this latter gospel (20:31), and admitted he didn't include everything (20:30). The other gospels already covered the crucifixion and other things; John's was written to actually cover things that had been left out of the others. In the Archaeological Study Bible I have, it says that John's audience were the non-Jewish believers who struggled with the popular Greek philosophies, that is Gnosticism, that claimed Jesus was divine, but not human. John's letters also deal with this issue.
This to me is problematic, as it just sounds too convenient, that another piece of the jigsaw should arrive to further the Churches claim to make Jesus Godlike. Some of the events that 'John' covered are not in the other three Gospels, why is this? The Gospel of John was written in about 80AD, this would have made John about 75 years of age give or take at the time of writing. If you reached the age 60 you were doing well in this era, 70 was not impossible, but to write a memoir on something 50 years would be extreme.
I don't understand why the contents themselves of John's gospel would be problematic. To me it seems like such an incredible nonargument. In a court room setting, don't people want as much evidence as possible? In those days, they transmitted information by word of mouth. John had been preaching, just as all the others had. They shared information, etc. As the church grew - which was very spread out, as you know - and people claiming to be apostles started bringing in false information, things began to be written down. John was responding to the Gnostics at a later time than the other gospels. Why is this such a no no? Lol. The apostles were human and did human things based on their circumstances; they weren't doing things to make them look good for people later. For a people who write and store information in a wildly different manner than they did.
John's Gospel is usually dated very late--toward the end of the century--but there are reasons for believing that it was actually written much earlier. The John Rylands Papyrus* suggests that John was already in wide circulation during the second century A.D. . . . Some have even proposed a date prior to the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70 . . . . It has been suggested that John may have written from Ephesus.
But this piece of papyrus has also been disputed Vicki, Andreas Schmidt, for example, in comparing different forms of handwriting actually places the date of the papyrus at around 170 AD. Most other non-biblical scholars would place it in 90AD and most New Testament Scholars would disagree, but this again goes back to my point on being biased and unbiased on each side. You might believe (and you might be indeed right), that you are analyzing something the correct way, but the prcocess could be flawed. That goes for all sides.
This papyrus "is the oldest copy yet discovered of any portion of the New Testament, dating back to the first half of the second century A.D." (ASB p. 1755). It was from Egypt, so the Gospel of John was already there and being read at this early date, and this after it was copied and transferred to Egypt, which could have taken quite a few years, even up to 30.
The dates you have given me here still places the Gospel of John circa 80AD, or even later.
The dating this book mentions is from about 135 AD. It's not all that different. It's just that it's the earliest fragment. It was a copy and transmitted to a distant land; how long would that take? It actually doesn't matter that much to me, just as it hasn't mattered to the millions of people who haven't had a problem with it the last 2,000 years. But, I certainly wouldn't mind investigating this further.

You did not address the logical consideration of John's having left out the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. That was an extremely major event for them. Extremely. If you wrote this Gospel at that late date, would you have ignored this completely, I wonder? Besides, there are things we can't know about how this was written originally. As I mentioned before, it's quite possible that John had much of this written down in notes, earlier, before the formal gospel was written. That certainly happens today, right? Lol. Even though they wrote less back then, he may have had quite a few notes, his own personal ones and from sermons, etc. Who knows.

There are other considerations about John and his authorship, but I need some time to look them up.

Re: i am a evangelical christian

Posted: Sun May 03, 2009 3:39 pm
by truthhurts
Hi Cslewislover,
how are you enjoying the site then??
I'd love to have a beer with you i'm sure we would have some stimulation conversations however since i believe your in california that may be a bit of a problem!! LOL
i see a lot of discussion about the bible, i dont see the point in it.
i have read it before when i was like 12 or 13 just before i gave up the old religion and i have to say that it's a nice book and filled with nice ideas and sentiments, it's also filled with horrrible things too, what i dont get is how people can pick out the good points as they see them and ignore the horrible stuff, then hold up the book as some kind of moral guide.
I dont know how some one can explain away the bad parts yet keep the good ones and call it the inerrent word of god??
No offence to you but i dont see how some one can live there lives on the cheery picked parts of a 2000 year old work of fiction!! :(

Re: i am a evangelical christian

Posted: Sun May 03, 2009 7:12 pm
by FXR
No one ever sat down and decided to write a book called the bible. The term is just a name on the binding of a cobbled together collection of papers and pamphlets written over a long period of time and tampered with and forged to suit various agendas. The term bible doesn't even appear in the "bible". For anyone to think the thing is the inerrant word of a god thing they have to have given their brain a holiday.

Re: i am a evangelical christian

Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 4:34 pm
by Regens K├╝chl
Hi Guys :)
I am a famous Angelologist and as such I keep Book about the Forums Angelo tries to evangelize :roll:
Here I am presenting to you for a First the english Forums where Angelo did roam I could find :shock:
Them are 22 Forums for now. Happy reading. I had 3 Forums more which I cant find right now. If I find them it will be breathtaking :idea: 25 :idea: english Angeloforums.

:arrow: Angelo also preaches in german, portuguese and other Forums which I will let follow here later :mrgreen:

http://atheist.ie/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2300
10

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... ba93323459
11

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=251843
7 Angelo page 2

http://debate.atheist.net/showthread.php?t=1753
tree

http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?t=179618
11

http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinkta ... #msg102249
6

http://www.paganforums.net/showthread.php?t=186405
52 banned

http://www.occultcorpus.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4677
22 closed

http://www.psychics.co.uk/psychic-forum ... ght=angelo
3 closed

http://www.ethicalatheist.com/forum/vie ... ght=angelo
41

http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewto ... lit=angelo
5 super intelligent forum

http://staffs.proboards.com/index.cgi?b ... 429&page=1
47 introduces Baphomet

http://www.thefreemason.com/community/T ... -11-1.aspx
2

http://forum.mastermason.com/forum_post ... &PID=45098
2

http://mwillett.org/Debate/viewtopic.ph ... highlight=
13 forgot his very own thread . . .

http://mwillett.org/Debate/viewtopic.ph ... sc&start=0
35 . . . and started again

http://ravingatheists.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14763
7

http://www.atheistforums.com/i-am-a-bor ... t4499.html
31 banned

http://mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?t=186405
52 banned

http://www.suicideforum.com/showthread.php?t=62947
5

http://atheisttoolbox.com/forum/viewtop ... f=4&t=9503
4

http://www.thescienceforum.com/i-am-a-b ... 18508t.php
13

Re: i am a evangelical christian

Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 3:18 pm
by anadub25
^
When i started reading your post at first i thought 'oh ffs here's someone who thinks the belief in angels is a science' :lol:
This is all very interesting, thank you for passing on the information!
Angelo if your mission is to evangelize and seek converts here as you have (unsuccessfully) done at these other sites you're wasting your time.

Re: i am a evangelical christian

Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 5:54 pm
by Max
Since a God is unmeasurable by any objective means. We have only the subjective influence of scripture and hearsay. So if a God is the answer what is the question?