Was Jesus killed on the cross?

[roundsquare]

Shine_of_sun said:
According to Gospels Jesus all disciples deserted Him and fled so, they had no any eye-witness from Jesus disciples

Not a problem at all. The disciples could have returned after fleeing and they could have witnessed the crucifixion that took place the next day. What is more we read the following:

"Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene, When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home." (John 19:25-27)

from this we see that the beloved disciple, probably John, not only witnessed the crucifixion, but spoke with Christ just moments before He expired on the cross! (cf. 19:28-30). Besides the beloved disciple, we note that Christ's mother, Mary Magdalene, and Mary, the wife of Cleophas, were present too (John 19:25-27).

So both Mary's and the beloved disciple of Jesus were there to witness the crucifixion and IF the other disciples were absent they would have been told by anyone or all of this witnesses. But more importantly since the gospel is God's word, God would have personally revealed this truths to the disciples in visions or in other ways. So God could have told the disciples or anyone of the other disciples, but then again the disciples could have returned and from some distance watch how their Master was being crucified.

 

[Shine_0f_sun]

Now those are the ones that specifically state the Jesus died for our sins.

Jesus never died for our sins. First tell me What was our sin??

It also states that Jesus was willing to die. And that does not mean that God won't allow the faithful to be killed.

Read my previous. I made there there clear that Jesus never was willing to die.

The fact is, the Bible is very clear on the death of Jesus, as well as many other faithful ones.

in Bible nothing is clear, Gospel is full of contradiction. Read my previous post contradiction about crucifixion

Maybe Jesus simply felt forsaken. But in the end, he wasn't. It was a time of weakness for Jesus

Jesus said lie? If Jesus was willing to die then why he had weakness??? Your response is not logical..

If you want, I can pull of verses in which clearly shows that God is contradicting himself. Not meaning God is liar, but that maybe he changes his mind.According to what?

THIS IS CLEAR THAT YOU HAVE NO WELL KNOWLEDGE ABOUT BIBLE!! Malchi 3:6 clearly says GOD NEVER CHANG!! Read bible dude!!

"I am the Lord, I chang Not"[Malchi 3:6]

The Bible, which we are discussing, clearly states that Jesus died

Bible full of contradiction. THERE NOTHING IS CLEAR!!!

Now, you could make an argument that the resurrection (which you can't have unless one is dead) was God saving Jesus. However, the Bible is clear. Jesus died

Just wait for my next response. Recently I shall prove that Jesus never resurrected. according to paul 1 corinthians 15:14-19 if anyone can prove Jesus never resurrected then christianity is false. Recently i will do it. Just wait for my next response about it

That is not Jesus objecting to God's will. That is simply Jesus questioning God and why he would forsake him

That was obviouly an objection to God's will because he again asked to God and its a strong proof that Jesus never was willing to die...

First, it was not an objection. Second, you've already stated that the Bible has parts added to it that were false, and that it is not fully trustworthy.

As proved it by my previous posts..Read my previous all posts. Gospel is not fully trustworthy..There have full of contradiction espically crucifixion store.

Third, there is no evidence that it was a different man other than Jesus

As God promised us He never forsake his faithful ones so If Jesus crucified then God is a liar. Indeed they do blaspheme who say God is liar!

And fourth, there isn't a contradiction in what you're saying

Big lol!! Full of contradiction..Just read my previous posts!!

First you use the Bible to support a point, and then say that it is full of contradictions, making any argument you have, by your logic, moot.

WHATS YOUR PROOF THAT BIBLE HAVE NO ANY SINGLE CONTRADICTION?? Prove me that bible is have no any single contradiction!!

And how to you suggest that the Quran is any better? Looking at the credibility, it was written by a person claiming to be talking to an angel, and he was illiterate.

Quran is better than Bible cause that is God's word and there have no any single contradiction..

Dude you never read bible? ILLITERATE PROPHET MUHAMMAD PROPHECY ALSO MENTIONED IN BIBLE!!

"Those who follow the Apostle, the illiterate Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (scripture),- the Law and the Gospel...."[Quran, 7:157]

Here God Almighty says Illiterate Prophet Muhammad prophecy was mentioned in bible. Now lets see bible:

"Then the book will be given to the one who is illiterate, Saying, "Please read this." And he will say, "I can not read" [isaiah 29:12 from New american standard bible]

This Prophecy is none without Prophet Muhammad.

When Archangel Gabrail commanded Muhmmad (pbuh) by saying Iqra-"read", he replied "i am not learned"

Lets see what verse:

"Read!, in the name of thy Lord and Cherisher, Who created thee"[Quran, 96:1]

This was the first verse of Quran what gabriel commanded to Muhammad.

Isaiah 29:12 prophecy is none without prophet Muhammad.

Crucifixion is no more than a hugh lie in bible. You heard Gospel of Barnabans? Barnabans was one of disciple of Jesus. He also wrote a gospel. Why christians dont wanna accept Barbanas Gospel? Lol Because Barbans says Jesus NOT CRUCIFIED AND crucifixion story was not clear.

Now, I'm not saying that the the Bible is accurate. However, the Bible is clear that Jesus died.

Lol finally you agree with me that Bible is not so accurate.. Jesus crucifixion is a clear contradiction in bible

In correct. The angel stated that after Jesus was supposedly resurrected.

ANGEL NEVER SAID JESUS
was RESURRECTED!! Where angel said it? But angel said Jesus was Alive!! Recently i shall prove that Jesus never resurrected by Bible. JUST WAIT

 

[roundsquare]

If Jesus knew that one of his disciples would betary him, why should he say that all 12 disciples would sit upon 12 thrones?(Matthew 19:28)

And Jesus said to them, Truly I say to you that in the time when all things are made new, and the Son of man is seated in his glory, you who have followed me will be seated on twelve seats, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
(Matthew 19:28 BBE)

Not the qualifier: you who have followed me

Jesus gave this promise to the disciples who will follow him (you who have followed me), Judas stopped following Jesus and betrayed him therefore since he stopped following Jesus he was replaced by another disciple. Matthias filled the Place of Judas:

Then they all prayed, "Lord, you know what everyone is like! Show us the one you have chosen to be an apostle and to serve in place of Judas, who got what he deserved." They drew names, and Matthias was chosen to join the group of the eleven apostles.
(Acts 1:24-26 CEV)

If Jesus knew that he was to die on the cross, why did he spend all night prayingin the Garden of Gathsemane seeking deliverance: Father If it is possible may this cup be taken from me?(Matthew 26:39)

Funny you should pose that question like that. let me give it a shot: Jesus spent all night praying and weeping BECAUSE he knew he was going to be crucified. WOULD You not cry and pray if you found out that in a few hours you would die a horrible death, I would.

By they way Jesus accepted the Father's cup read what he said:

Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.
(Luke 22:42 KJV)

Jesus decided to go along with his Father's will, the divine will, his flesh was weak but his spirit was willing

Mat 26:41 ... the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

Jesus did not want to be saved in reality he wanted to die but in his weakness fearing the torture he was soon to undergo he wept and asked God to find another way but there was no other way there was only one way, he had to die, and Jesus was willing to die. Read to what Jesus said:

Don't you know that I could ask my Father, and right away he would send me more than twelve armies of angels? But then, how could the words of the Scriptures come true, which say that this must happen?"
(Matthew 26:53-54 CEV)

This is an important statement Jesus said that He could ask the father to save him and at once 12 armies of angels would be send down. Yet Jesus didn't ask God to send down twelve armies of angels. Jesus said that he had to undergo what he was about to undergo so that what had been written about him in scripture should be fulfilled.

But then, how could the words of the Scriptures come true, which say that this must happen?

Now in Hebrews 5:7 we read:

God had the power to save Jesus from death. And while Jesus was on earth, he begged God who could save him with loud crying and tears. He truly worshiped God, and God listened to his prayers.
(Hebrews 5:7 CEV)

The king James uses the word heard: which is the Greek word "eisakouō" eisakouō means to listen to: - hear.. Muslims twist this verse to mean that Jesus was saved from crucifixion. However Hebrews says That God heard or listened to the prayer of Jesus, God wasn't ignoring his prayer.

Furthermore Muslims only like to look at one part of the prayer Jesus Gave, they ignore the last part where Jesus says "nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done. ". This was part of His prayer, Jesus prayed that God's will should be done. And it was God's will that Jesus should die for the sins of the world. How do we know it was God's will:
Well we know that Jesus only taught what the Father had commanded Him.
Here is what Jesus said:

I don't speak on my own. I say only what the Father who sent me has told me to say. I know that his commands will bring eternal life. That is why I tell you exactly what the Father has told me.
(John 12:49-50 CEV)

Since he only taught what the Father had commanded him we note that Jesus said what God had commanded him when he said:

From then on, Jesus began telling his disciples what would happen to him. He said, "I must go to Jerusalem. There the nation's leaders, the chief priests, and the teachers of the Law of Moses will make me suffer terribly. I will be killed, but three days later I will rise to life."
(Matthew 16:21 CEV)

Jesus picked up a cup of wine and gave thanks to God. He then gave it to his disciples and said, "Take this and drink it. This is my blood, and with it God makes his agreement with you. It will be poured out, so that many people will have their sins forgiven.
(Matthew 26:27-28 CEV)

Therefore we conclude that it was the Father's will for Jesus to die since Jesus only taught what the father Had commanded him. THerefore although he was afraid to suffer the cross he closed his prayer by saying Father not my will but your will be done.

If Jesus belived that his prayer in the Graden of Gethsemene would not be heard, why did he tell this disciples earlier that prayers are answered?

When that time comes, you won't have to ask me about anything. I tell you for certain that the Father will give you whatever you ask for in my name. You have not asked for anything in this way before, but now you must ask in my name. Then it will be given to you, so that you will be completely happy.
(John 16:23-24 CEV)

Jesus told his disciples that when the time comes they must ask for what they want "in my(Jesus) name", Jesus did not pray in his name and Jesus said the time for praying in his name would come later. Anyway I'm sure Jesus doesn't need to ask for anything in His name for his Father would give him the desire of his heart at any time. With the foregoing I just wanted to reveal how you twisted Jesus' words to make a point. anyway as I said above Jesus prayer was for the Will of His Father to be done.
And clearly the will of the father was for Jesus to die as He clearly didn't sent 12 armies of angels.

As for so-called failed prophecies I will not deal with them, they are not germane to what is being discussed.

 

[fallingblood]

Gospel is totally corrupt because there have too much contradiction, even about crucifixion!!

Then don't use the Gospels to support your ideas. By your own admission, any argument that you use that uses the Gospels as support is useless.

Personally, I find it ridiculous to throw out the Gospels because it has some contradictions. It would be better to try to understand why those contradictions are there, as in understanding the context of the Gospels being written.

Jesus Quotes Unknown scripture!!

Just because the scripture does not appear in the Old Testament does not mean that it did not come from scripture. The Old Testament was not formed as we currently have it. There were various other manuscripts considered to be scripture that simply did not make it into the Bible.

Matthew 12:38-40 prophecy clearly says Jesus miraculous sign shall be unto the sign of Jonah which meaning he shall not die unto jonah but Matthew 16:21 says he shall die which is clearly a contradiction..Now few christian can tell 12:38-40 prophecied about time factor But again they fail to realise that it was not 3 days and 3 nights as i proved it before. Read my previous post..

The sign of Jonah does not state that. You are implying that it meant that. You are simply reading what you want into the Gospels, and it doesn't work like that. Jesus talking about the sign of Jonah does not suggest that he will not die.

Gospel showing us too much contradiction what given by Jesus himself which meaning gospel is totally corrupt and untrusted!!

Incorrect. It means that one needs to read them more carefully. Also, many of the contradictions you've shown are not contradictions, but are more of you reading too much into something that is simply not there.

Contradictories about crucifixion and resurrection in Bible:

Maybe understanding the communities and circumstances in which each Gospel was written would be a great start for you. Also, understanding that many ancient biographies had contradictions in them when compared to other ancient biographies of the same person. Even in modern biographies we have this problem.

It simply means that one must read them more carefully.

"The author of Mark, the earliest of the narrative gospels, WAS NOT AN EYESWITNESS: he is reporting information conveyed to him by A THIRD PERSON OR PERSONS, who themselves were quite possible not eye-witness"[Robert Walter funk, The Jesus Seminar, the acts of Jesus, page 4]]/quote] What's your point? Are you aware that eyewitness accounts do not mean that they are accurate? Are you aware that the society that they were living in was an oral traditional one? Have you done any study on oral tradition?

It is no surprise that the stories were written after the fact. It happened with many ancient biographies (maybe you should even do a study on that genre). That was the case with many ancient biographies. Even Tiberius, a Roman Emperor, the biographies that we have him, accept one, were written well after the fact. And he was an elite member of society, not some peasant.

Christians scholar Mack Burton Says, "There is no reference to Jesus' death as a crucifixion in the pre-Markan jesus Material"[Who wrote New Testament? Page 87]

So the Pauline Epistles do not actually talk about the crucifixion of Jesus? Incorrect, that is one of the things that Paul does talk about. I don't know what other material he is talking about though.

Seems you are so fool!! Jesus confirmed us Psalm 91 chapter was indeed speaking about him by saying "the scripture ALSO say" Read my previous post!!!
It was referring to Messiah. David 90% prophecy was referring to the Messiah and that why messiah call as "Son of David"

you talking totally rubbish!!!

So now the Bible is accurate? You are contradicting yourself. The Gospels are accurate only when you want them to be? Sorry, that does not cut it. Plus, Psalms 91 was not referring to the Messiah so it is a moot point.

 

[fallingblood]

Not a problem at all. The disciples could have returned after fleeing and they could have witnessed the crucifixion that took place the next day. What is more we read the following:

Actually it is a problem. The disciples never would have come back. The reason they fled was very logical. If Jesus was being crucified, that meant they had a very likely chance of being crucified as well as they were his disciples. That is what Rome did. If the leader of a criminal sect was crucified, so were his disciples. The disciples simply would not have come back and there is no evidence to even suggest that.

from this we see that the beloved disciple, probably John, not only witnessed the crucifixion, but spoke with Christ just moments before He expired on the cross! (cf. 19:28-30). Besides the beloved disciple, we note that Christ's mother, Mary Magdalene, and Mary, the wife of Cleophas, were present too (John 19:25-27).

The writer of John was not a disciple at all. The disciples were dead by the time that John was written. Also, the anti-Jewish message in John clearly shows that it was not a disciple of Jesus, as John would have been a Jew. Really, all of the evidence points towards the fact that John was written people far removed from the disciples. So your point here is quite moot.

So both Mary's and the beloved disciple of Jesus were there to witness the crucifixion and IF the other disciples were absent they would have been told by anyone or all of this witnesses. But more importantly since the gospel is God's word, God would have personally revealed this truths to the disciples in visions or in other ways. So God could have told the disciples or anyone of the other disciples, but then again the disciples could have returned and from some distance watch how their Master was being crucified.

All of the Gospels state that some of the women were there. The problem, the disciples of Jesus, and probably those women were all dead. The Gospels can't even agree on the details.

The disciples would not have returned. The witnesses were dead by the time of the Gospel writings. If God did reveal his message to the writers of the Gospels, then they all screwed it up later, or God just told people different ideas. Each one of the Gospels were written in different communities, some far removed from the early Jesus movement. Basically, all you have here are some unfounded assumptions.

 

[fallingblood]

Jesus never died for our sins. First tell me What was our sin??

It's plural: sins. Also, I've already covered this. I've quoted the various verses that state clearly that the Bible states that Jesus died for our sins. I don't feel like quoting those verses again just so you can ignore them.

Read my previous. I made there there clear that Jesus never was willing to die.

I've read your previous post and have shown why you were wrong. I do not feel like posting the same verses over again just to prove you wrong once again.

in Bible nothing is clear, Gospel is full of contradiction. Read my previous post contradiction about crucifixion

Incorrect. I've dealt with this quite a few times. However, if that is the opinion you want to have, then do not quote the Bible at all as everything you say is then moot. You are contradicting yourself when ever you quote the Bible.

Jesus said lie? If Jesus was willing to die then why he had weakness??? Your response is not logical..

It is logical if one is willing to think for a little bit. Jesus was suffering. Of course he is going to feel weakness. That was the point of the crucifixion, to tear a person down. They will feel weakness. However, the Bible is clear that Jesus was willing to do the will of God.

THIS IS CLEAR THAT YOU HAVE NO WELL KNOWLEDGE ABOUT BIBLE!! Malchi 3:6 clearly says GOD NEVER CHANG!! Read bible dude!!

"I am the Lord, I chang Not"[Malchi 3:6]



Bible full of contradiction. THERE NOTHING IS CLEAR!!!

This is actually funny. First you say that the Bible clearly says something, and then you claim nothing is clear in the Bible. You have contradicted your own point and made it moot. No reason for me to even show why you're wrong as you've already done so.

Just wait for my next response. Recently I shall prove that Jesus never resurrected. according to paul 1 corinthians 15:14-19 if anyone can prove Jesus never resurrected then christianity is false. Recently i will do it. Just wait for my next response about it

You can't do that. Also, I doubt you understand what Paul is saying. Finally, Paul was a Jew, so your point is moot.

As far as the Bible is concerned, Jesus resurrected from the dead. The Bible is clear about that. So please, don't waste your time.

That was obviouly an objection to God's will because he again asked to God and its a strong proof that Jesus never was willing to die...

Maybe if you want to read things in that passage that simply are not in there, and if you want to now claim that the Bible can be clear on ideas.

And no, it wasn't an objection. I've explained this quite a few times. He questioned God, but never objected to what was happening. He gave no signs of objecting to God's will for him.

As proved it by my previous posts..Read my previous all posts. Gospel is not fully trustworthy..There have full of contradiction espically crucifixion store.

And yet you use the Bible to try to prove your points. Please, you are sounding like a broken record. If you can not logically debate me, don't repeat the same drivel.

As God promised us He never forsake his faithful ones so If Jesus crucified then God is a liar. Indeed they do blaspheme who say God is liar!

By your own admission, the Bible is incorrect, so maybe that passage simply never happened, or the Bible contradicts itself. You've claimed this over and over again.

Also, Jesus simply exclaiming that he feels that God has forsaken him does not mean that God forsake him. There is a difference.

WHATS YOUR PROOF THAT BIBLE HAVE NO ANY SINGLE CONTRADICTION?? Prove me that bible is have no any single contradiction!!

Who ever said that? Maybe instead of beating a dead horse you can form a logical argument.

Quran is better than Bible cause that is God's word and there have no any single contradiction..

Prove it. Swallow your own words and prove this.

Dude you never read bible? ILLITERATE PROPHET MUHAMMAD PROPHECY ALSO MENTIONED IN BIBLE!!

Simply, no he is not.

Crucifixion is no more than a hugh lie in bible. You heard Gospel of Barnabans? Barnabans was one of disciple of Jesus. He also wrote a gospel. Why christians dont wanna accept Barbanas Gospel? Lol Because Barbans says Jesus NOT CRUCIFIED AND crucifixion story was not clear.

Never written by Barbanas. Any research will reveal this. If you even look at when it was written, you can clearly see this.

ANGEL NEVER SAID JESUS
was RESURRECTED!! Where angel said it? But angel said Jesus was Alive!! Recently i shall prove that Jesus never resurrected by Bible. JUST WAIT

I would rather not wait for your ill-researched remarks. I've already explained why you were wrong. Please, if you are going to argue with me, argue with the points that I'm posting, not just saying that it is a contradiction.

You've only shown that you can contradict yourself.

 

[roundsquare]

Fallingblood, you aver that all I gave in my above post re the fleeing of disciples are some unfounded assumptions, interestingly you are guilty of the very thing you have accused me of- to say that John didnt write the Gospel attributed to him because of apparant anti-semitism in the gospel is nothing short of an assumption, as you cant prove that John could never pen something anti-Jewish? You may ask why John would write anything antisemitic, however even if you cant perceive any reasons, you are still not justified in your conclusion that someone apart from John wrote the Gospel blamed on him at least until you prove that John could never pen anything antisemitic. AS to the date of the Gospel conservatives have unanimously said John the apostle wrote the Gospel, recent discoveries which include the John Rylands papyrus which contain fragments of the gospel are dated as early as A.D. 135, also,many copies of the gospel were circulated throughout the Mediterranean world, thus, necessitating its early date. conservatives have agreed on A.D. 90. as the date of the gospel.

 

[roundsquare]

As to whether the Gospel is antisemitic that is a topic for another thread, for now im happy with the historical data that places the gospel within the lifetime of eyewitnesses including John. furthermorf the author of the gospel has identified himself as the disciple whom Jesus loved see John 13:23, 19:26, 20:2, 21:7,20, what is more early church fathers unanimously blamed John for the gospel bearing his name.

 

[fallingblood]

Fallingblood, you aver that all I gave in my above post re the fleeing of disciples are some unfounded assumptions, interestingly you are guilty of the very thing you have accused me of- to say that John didnt write the Gospel attributed to him because of apparant anti-semitism in the gospel is nothing short of an assumption, as you cant prove that John could never pen something anti-Jewish? You may ask why John would write anything antisemitic, however even if you cant perceive any reasons, you are still not justified in your conclusion that someone apart from John wrote the Gospel blamed on him at least until you prove that John could never pen anything antisemitic. AS to the date of the Gospel conservatives have unanimously said John the apostle wrote the Gospel, recent discoveries which include the John Rylands papyrus which contain fragments of the gospel are dated as early as A.D. 135, also,many copies of the gospel were circulated throughout the Mediterranean world, thus, necessitating its early date. conservatives have agreed on A.D. 90. as the date of the gospel.

It has been established, and accepted by the vast majority, if not all scholars, being Christian, Jewish, Muslim, atheist, or whatever, that John was not written by John the apostle. It is known that it was written by a community far removed from the disciples. The beloved disciple is only assumed to be John (others have suggested it was Thomas, Mary Magdalene, or another character).

Also, by 90 C.E., John would have most likely been dead. Also, that is a pretty early date for that Gospel. Conservative scholars are somewhat of a minority. Liberal and moderate scholars tend to favor a later date. I tend to lean towards agreeing with the moderate scholars as they have less of a bias in my opinion.

Finally, John was a Jew. He would not have called himself a child of Satan, or degrade himself so much. It simply isn't logical.

 

[roundsquare]

The data favors an early date as I showed, and no the vast majority of scholars do not concur that John didnt write the Gospel bearing his name, can you name these scholars? And why in your view are liberal and moderate scholars less biased? what makes their report more trustworthy, these scholars have a tendency not believe in the supernatural, and clearly are biased in that sense. John by the way didnt call himself a son of the devil, can you show me where he refers to himself as such. Again can you show that John could not have written anything antisemitic? I dont want your assumptions, I want solid proof that John could not have under all and any possible mental,emotional and enviromental circumstances written an antisemitic statement. To say that it is illogical as you did in your above post that John would write anything antisemitic is not an answer, logic is subjective in many cases, different people find different things illogical. atheists like Dawkins for instance find the believe in a god illogical while billions of theists do not.I can provide many more examples, but I think that one is enough. What is more recent discovers suggest that John was written relatively early and not late as is held by certain scholars, and furthermore we have the testimony of church fathers who lived closer to the events, and we also note that the author identifies himself as the apostle Jesus loved, so whether John or not the author was close to Jesus. furthermore this loved disciple of Jesus is male, see John 14:23-25.

 

[fallingblood]

The data favors an early date as I showed, and no the vast majority of scholars do not concur that John didnt write the Gospel bearing his name, can you name these scholars? And why in your view are liberal and moderate scholars less biased? what makes their report more trustworthy, these scholars have a tendency not believe in the supernatural, and clearly are biased in that sense. John by the way didnt call himself a son of the devil, can you show me where he refers to himself as such. Again can you show that John could not have written anything antisemitic? I dont want your assumptions, I want solid proof that John could not have under all and any possible mental,emotional and enviromental circumstances written an antisemitic statement. To say that it is illogical as you did in your above post that John would write anything antisemitic is not an answer, logic is subjective in many cases, different people find different things illogical. atheists like Dawkins for instance find the believe in a god illogical while billions of theists do not.I can provide many more examples, but I think that one is enough. What is more recent discovers suggest that John was written relatively early and not late as is held by certain scholars, and furthermore we have the testimony of church fathers who lived closer to the events, and we also note that the author identifies himself as the apostle Jesus loved, so whether John or not the author was close to Jesus. furthermore this loved disciple of Jesus is male, see John 14:23-25.

That is incorrect. Can you show in the Gospel of John where John is called the beloved disciple? The beloved disciple, according to early records, could have been a number of people. There was a suggestion that Mary Magdalene was the beloved disciple, that Thomas was the beloved disciple, and a few other individuals. These candidates come from other early Gospels, and Christian communities.

The author of John calls the Jews the sons of the Devil. John was a Jew, thus he called himself a son of the Devil.

The scholars who agree with a later date, and that John was not the author of the Gospel bearing his name include Bart D. Ehrman, L. Michael White, Marcus Borg, E.P. Sanders, John Dominic Crossan, John P. Meier, as well as many others. These are considered leaders/authorities on the subject. More so, since at least 1820 the authorship has been debated, and K.G. Bretschneider's even shows that the author of John was not from Palestine, as the author does not show much familiarity with the area. This all rules out John.

It isn't even until the second century that the idea started to be even be accepted, and even then, the evidence was not very strong. It is only by tradition starting after the fact, and a while after the fact, that John was accredited with writing that particular Gospel. However, when it first originated, it was circulated anonymously. The Gospel itself doesn't even state that John was the author.

Here is some follow up:
Authorship of the Johannine works - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Gospel of John


And the reason I trust moderate and liberal scholars more (particularly moderates) is because they are not trying to prove their religious ideas.

 

[roundsquare]

fallingblood we are deviating from the matter in question, therefore to avoid further deviation I will only fleetingly regard some of your points. 1. Its not clear to me if you have dropped your initial argument that most scholars argue for later dates for the gospel, because somewhere you seem to agree that the gospel existed in the 1st century but then you go on to name scholars that you say go along with later dates. Nevertheless acording to Wikipedia, and the New World Encyclopedia most scholars date the gospel of john c. 90-100 C.E. 2. Who suggested that Mary could be the author? the earliest sources around unamimously blame John the apostle for it, and I think it makes more sense to agree with the earliest sources. Papias for example attributed it to John so did Polycarp who is said to have personally known the disciples. 3. Where does John collectively call the Jews sons of the Devil? 4. By addressing Ehrman and his bunch as scholars who are considered leaders or authorities on the subject are you saying that the remaining scholars are not authorities? 5. K.G. Bretschneider has been shown to be wrong on the point that John was badly informed about the geography of Palestine by such scholars as Blomberg. 6.Did you know that an earlier copy of the gospel of John has never been found without the title, or with a different title, critics simply assume without manuscript evidence that the titles of the gospels are later additions. So there is grounds to be suspicious of this claim. This also challenges the view that the author could be a woman, whats more the beloved disciple is identified as male in the gospel.

 

[roundsquare]

Moderate and liberals are not free of bias. Many liberals are naturalists who are extremely critical of supernaturalism and thus of the miraculous claims recorded in the bible, and their criticism and exegesis of the bible suffers through that as a consequence. They are purposefuly overly harsh on the bible not because that measure of harshness is the norm in the field of exegesis but it could be stated that they are religiously motivated. for example the same scholars who strive to undermine the authorship of the gospels will often be lenient towards other ancient documents, Tatitus Annals authorial attributions are also only found in the titles and not in the main text, just like the gospels. the earliest attributions of them are made in the 3rd century over a hundred years later. Papias attributed the gospels to the disciples in a much fewer number of years. Yet scholars are almost unanimous in their acceptance of Tacitus as the author and they do not claim that the titles were added later to Tacitus Annals. How can someone who applies such blatant double standard be thought of as being fair and unbiased?

 

[Danmac]

God instructed Abraham.....

Genesis 22: 2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.

God didn't want Abraham to offer Isaac, he only wanted to see if he would......

Genesis 22: 11 ¶ And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I.
12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.

On there journey to the mountain Abraham told Isaac....

Genesis 22: 7 And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?
8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.

This offering was a symbolic gesture that would mimic God's ultimate plan to save mankind. God Himself would provide a lamb without blemish and without spot. As Abraham was about to offer his only son, so God would offer his only son.......

Hebrews 11:17 It was faith that enabled Abraham, when put to the test, to offer Isaac as a sacrifice--he who had received the promises offering up his only son,
18 of whom it had been said-- 'It is through Isaac that there shall be descendants to bear thy name.'
19 For he argued that God was able even to raise a man from the dead--and indeed, figuratively speaking, Abraham did receive Isaac back from the dead.

So also God offered His only Son....

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

A lamb without spot and without blemish...

Ex 12:5 Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year: ye shall take it out from the sheep, or from the goats:

1st Peter 1:18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
21 Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.

So it was necessary that Christ die for the sins of humankind, and be raised from the dead, so that death might be destroyed thru faith in Christ.......

Heb 2:14 ¶ Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also (Christ) himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

So Jesus death is necessary for the redemption of humankind. He is the lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world.......

Re 5:6 ¶ And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.

 

[logician]

As to whether the Gospel is antisemitic that is a topic for another thread, for now im happy with the historical data that places the gospel within the lifetime of eyewitnesses including John. furthermorf the author of the gospel has identified himself as the disciple whom Jesus loved see John 13:23, 19:26, 20:2, 21:7,20, what is more early church fathers unanimously blamed John for the gospel bearing his name.

This is quite untrue, all gospels are twice or thrice hearsay written long after the supposed life of Jesus, and written in a fictional or storytelling style rather than a historical style. The gospels were written to push a literalist view of Xianity, with individual biases of the unknown writers thrown in for good measure. No gospel would survive credibility in a court of law. :sleep:

 

[fallingblood]

1. Its not clear to me if you have dropped your initial argument that most scholars argue for later dates for the gospel, because somewhere you seem to agree that the gospel existed in the 1st century but then you go on to name scholars that you say go along with later dates.
Nevertheless acording to Wikipedia, and the New World Encyclopedia most scholars date the gospel of john c. 90-100 C.E.

Later does not equal 2nd century. Yes, the Gospels were completed by the end of the 1st century, with John possibly at the very beginning of the 2nd century. Also, with the source you even quote, 90 is the earliest that it would be. It is not the date they are saying that it was written. Even there is a whole decade that is being listed. Further research would show that many scholars lean towards the end of that decade, instead of the beginning.

2. Who suggested that Mary could be the author? the earliest sources around unamimously blame John the apostle for it, and I think it makes more sense to agree with the earliest sources. Papias for example attributed it to John so did Polycarp who is said to have personally known the disciples.

Never said Mary was the author. I stated that it was argued that Mary was the beloved disciple. The Gospel only names that it was authored by the beloved disciple, who there were various people that it could be. There was no evidence that John wrote the Gospel, and actually there is quite a bit of evidence suggesting that he did not.

And I would not say it makes sense to go with the earliest sources if they do not prove what they are claiming. Earliest does not mean better. One of the earliest sources we have on the birth of Augustus claims that he was born of a virgin and a god. Should we consider that accurate as well even though we now have sources that differentiate?

3. Where does John collectively call the Jews sons of the Devil?

John 8:42, the author calls the Jews the sons of the Devil. Or at least everyone who disagrees with what that author was saying. l

4. By addressing Ehrman and his bunch as scholars who are considered leaders or authorities on the subject are you saying that the remaining scholars are not authorities?

Never said that or even suggested that. You asked for scholars, I gave you scholars.

5. K.G. Bretschneider has been shown to be wrong on the point that John was badly informed about the geography of Palestine by such scholars as Blomberg.

Could you give a source for this? I've read Blomberg a little, and I know he claims the geography is accurate, but I haven't seen him prove this. Either way, I was simply showing that for quite some time now the authorship has been debated.

6.Did you know that an earlier copy of the gospel of John has never been found without the title, or with a different title, critics simply assume without manuscript evidence that the titles of the gospels are later additions.

From what date are these early copies? And also, if this is true, what is not until the 2nd century that the idea is even claimed? And even then it was not clear which John they were talking about as there was a difference even then.

More so, it does not make sense that the writer of the Gospel tried to remain anonymous by labeling himself just as the beloved disciple (which could have referred to a number of individuals), if by what you are suggesting, it was always circulated with that title.

So there is grounds to be suspicious of this claim. This also challenges the view that the author could be a woman, whats more the beloved disciple is identified as male in the gospel.

It may rule out Mary, yet she was still considered, by some, especially in Gnostic circles, to be the beloved disciple. Thomas was another very likely candidate.

 

[fallingblood]

Moderate and liberals are not free of bias.

Never said they were. I simply stated I preferred them as they tend to be less religiously bias, and thus are not looking at the Bible with the intention of proving the Bible right.

They may be biased in the point of trying to show that the Bible is wrong, but I do prefer that as I can find more value in that work. Also, I stated that in all, I tend to prefer moderate scholars, or scholars who are closer to the middle, be they conservative or liberal. I prefer not to mess with extremes on either side.

 

[fallingblood]

This is quite untrue, all gospels are twice or thrice hearsay written long after the supposed life of Jesus, and written in a fictional or storytelling style rather than a historical style. The gospels were written to push a literalist view of Xianity, with individual biases of the unknown writers thrown in for good measure. No gospel would survive credibility in a court of law. :sleep:

A lot of history could not survive credibility in a court of law. However, hearsay can is is allowed in court. Yes, some is dismissed, but not all of the time. Hearsay can be very important in court cases.

Also, the Gospels, Luke especially, was written in a historical style, and not fictional as you claim. Looking at the actual genres that the Gospels fit would go a long way in showing this.

 

[roundsquare]

Well you are a proffessing agnostics so it doesn't shock me to learn that you find more value in the work of liberals and moderates, as it gives you reason to continue doubting the gospels and keep you from seriously chewing on the message contained in them.However I have no such agenda I go with the work that has more merit, and the work of conservatives seem to carry more merit as far as I am aware. Critics in their attack of the bible ignore even early church tradition, just like you did in your above post when you challenged the testimonies of Polycarp and Papias, by suggesting that they could have lied. Critics are also fond of making up unfounded assumptions, like assuming that the names of the gospels were added later when theres not a shred of evidence for this, just to give themselves more reason to reject the gospels, well I wont be taken in by assumptions. I am satisfied with the early dates attributed to the gospels and the witness of the early church. the author of John was the beloved disciple and so he was close to Jesus and knew Jesus thus I see no reason to seriously question his testimony of Christ. And furthermore since the title of the gospel is John theres a good chance that its author was the apostle John and polycarp a contemporary of the disciples agree.

 

[fallingblood]

Well you are a proffessing agnostics so it doesn't shock me to learn that you find more value in the work of liberals and moderates, as it gives you reason to continue doubting the gospels and keep you from seriously chewing on the message contained in them.

Agnostic theist. Meaning I believe in a god/s; I'm a monist.

However I have no such agenda I go with the work that has more merit, and the work of conservatives seem to carry more merit as far as I am aware.

Can you show some evidence for that? And being a Christian, means you have no agenda in trying to prove the Bible right?

Critics in their attack of the bible ignore even early church tradition, just like you did in your above post when you challenged the testimonies of Polycarp and Papias, by suggesting that they could have lied.

So they couldn't have lied? Are you aware that early Church tradition held that there were three Johns. It was debated as to which one of these Johns actually wrote the Gospel. Early Church tradition also said that they were all one and the same. Early Church tradition is flawed.

Critics are also fond of making up unfounded assumptions, like assuming that the names of the gospels were added later when theres not a shred of evidence for this, just to give themselves more reason to reject the gospels, well I wont be taken in by assumptions.

Accept that the earliest copies were circulated without the later Titles. And that we have record of the Early church fathers assigning the authorship later on. But please, do show me some evidence of what your claiming.

I am satisfied with the early dates attributed to the gospels and the witness of the early church. the author of John was the beloved disciple and so he was close to Jesus and knew Jesus thus I see no reason to seriously question his testimony of Christ. And furthermore since the title of the gospel is John theres a good chance that its author was the apostle John and polycarp a contemporary of the disciples agree.

So you are not aware that Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp, stated that the writer of the Gospel was John the disciple of the Lord as opposed to Apostle John (and Irenaeus did make a difference between the two).

Also, early Church tradition also held that Thomas was the beloved disciple. Early church tradition was diverse as Christianity was still in its formation.

Also, if you believe John, then you have to accept that the synoptics are wrong on various points. Such as when Jesus died.

And finally, the title was only added later, and even then there was not agreement as to what John it was.