oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
No probs...... !
1. I'm not an atheist.
2. I do believe in Jesus.
Well, they didn't make some things up, Ken.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Apostle John was not the disciple, I think his gospels show this clearly.
- Thread starter oldbadger
- Start date
2. I do believe in Jesus.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Well, in that case the person/s who wrote G-John were not apostles.
I've never been told what the clear difference between the two titles, disciple and apostle.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
No verses to offer as evidence, just personal junk, Ken?As we read the Gospel according to Ol' Badger
Yet more personal comments with no verses for evidence.
You didn't know that, I'll bet.
Palm Sunday........ sightseeing. So they didn't go there that often.
Like an empty tomb after 36+ hours?
Leaving out evidence = can mean no evidence , surely?
Putting in false claims = Perversion of the course of truth, maybe?
You never did learn the ABC rule for depositions, Ken.
They should be Accurate, Brief and Clear. Like G-Mark, for example.
When folks on weak ground turn the debate in to personal comments like this, it's because they have not got a verse to offer.
Well at least I was able to teach you something from me during these last 2/3 posts, eh?
1. Peter wrote directly about his experience at the transfiguration.
2. On Palm Sunday they went sightseeing. True....... Chapter and verse.
Personal digs like the above show you do know enough about the gospels to offer evidence for your case.As we read the Gospel according to Ol' Badger
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Whoever wrote (most of) the Gospel of Mark was there at the arrest, anyway.
I wasn't trying to say you were an atheist. I was saying that even an atheist who knows how to look at evidence years after a death tried to prove it wrong (it was made up, it was invented, it wasn't true) and realized that it was true. Can't get any more unbiased than an atheist.
Glad about #2Correct... they didn't
I think that if we read the Gospels and Acts.... it is more than just an empty tomb.
Personally speaking, we believe because so many scriptures were fulfilled, like when John said:
12:37 Though he had done so many signs before them, they still did not believe in him, 38 so that the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled:“Lord, who has believed what he heard from us, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?”39 Therefore they could not believe. For again Isaiah said, 40 “He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn, and I would heal them.” 41 Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory and spoke of him (Is 53:1 and Is 61:10)
And again, because John said:
John 13:18 I am not speaking of all of you; I know whom I have chosen. But the Scripture will be fulfilled, ‘He who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me.’ (Is 41:9)
And once again...
John 15:25 But the word that is written in their Law must be fulfilled: ‘They hated me without a cause.’ (ps 69:4)
As well as:
John 17: 12 While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled. (ps 41:9)
and:
John 19:36 For these things took place that the Scripture might be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken.” (Ex 12:46)
As the statisticians mentioned, only 8 fulfilled by one person is already beyond impossible.
Except there is evidence that he added and confirmed so many of the events
A little subjective, IMO, as I find it very accurate, brief and clear. Isn't it you that are saying it is too brief because he left out transfiguration?
Relevance?
Personal digs like the above show you do know enough about the gospels to offer evidence for your case.
Well... this is how it looks like on this end. Old Badger wants John to specifically say something that only he wants him to say to validate his position. Forget that it was already established by three other gospels, he wants John to say the same thing that three other people have already said. So you set up the parameters to then tear down the book regardless of what the book did confirm and offers.
At least that is how it comes across.
It is a growth delineation. Everyone starts as a disciple. Apostles came after his resurrection as a sent out one that had been taught by Jesus (for the twelve).
Like Phillip who started as a disciple, then became a deacon and then became an evangelist.
Everyone starts as a disciple.
I think it is good to note that each Gospel was actually written for a different purpose and, in reality, with a different style
Matthew spoke to the Jews
Mark spoke to the Romans.
Luke was a Greek speaking to the Greeks
John wrote to everyone, everyone needs to meet God and only Jesus can reveal Him
So, to the point, it really wasn't just about everyone writing the same thing but rather spoken differently to a different audience and for a different purpose.
Another viewpoint is:
Matthew spoke about Jesus being the King of the Jews, with the emphasis on the teachings of Jesus and how he fulfilled the law
Mark spoke about the suffering Messiah, his authority and work
Luke spoke about Jesus being the savior for all but spoken by a Greek to the Greeks
John was written to inspire faith, the uniqueness of Jesus with a focus on signs and wonders along with statements made by Jesus (since he was with him). His uniqueness of his presentation was to augment on what was already establish on the other three.
Matthew spoke to the Jews
Mark spoke to the Romans.
Luke was a Greek speaking to the Greeks
John wrote to everyone, everyone needs to meet God and only Jesus can reveal Him
So, to the point, it really wasn't just about everyone writing the same thing but rather spoken differently to a different audience and for a different purpose.
Another viewpoint is:
Matthew spoke about Jesus being the King of the Jews, with the emphasis on the teachings of Jesus and how he fulfilled the law
Mark spoke about the suffering Messiah, his authority and work
Luke spoke about Jesus being the savior for all but spoken by a Greek to the Greeks
John was written to inspire faith, the uniqueness of Jesus with a focus on signs and wonders along with statements made by Jesus (since he was with him). His uniqueness of his presentation was to augment on what was already establish on the other three.
Actually in John's gospel only, there are 3 Passovers which would have meant at least 3 trips to Jerusalem. Seems for Pilate the 3rd was the last straw.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
I must remember that you wrote this, Ken..... 'Can't get any more unbiased than an atheist.'
If only you could have pasted up actual evidence in the form of verses.
I think you've already realised from this thread that you need to read the gospels, because all the anecdotes ever told and spun cannot make any difference to the original accounts.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Neither Author John, Apostle John nor Disciple John were at the exceution nor at the empty tomb.
G-Mark makes this quite clear, Ken.
None of the above can be offered as any kind of statement about what happened.
If this is the basis for your faith, then so be it, but.............
No....... not just that..... all the other exhibits being offered as well, Ken.
No. OB has read John's gospel and it shows beyond a doubt that the author/s were not present during the campaign of Jesus.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
So there would have been about 82 apostles then.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Different purpose?
Luke was not there, he just wrote down the stories he knew and copied some writings, like Mark's.
Matthew was not there, he just wrote down the stories he knew and copied some writings, like Mark's.
Mark was definitely a partial witness, and he probably included the memoirs of Cephas.
John was not there and wrote all the spiritual spin, lots of hyperbole, and left out the actions of Jesus which were considered to be less important of more mundane. And he turned the enemies of Jesus from the Priesthood in to .....the Jews. A humanitarian disgrace in my opinion..
Ken, they certainly didn't write about the same thing! You got it right at last!
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Pearl, they went sightseeing on that last Palm Sunday. It says so in G-Mark.
John's 3 Passovers in a three year mission are simply disproved by Mark's 11-12 month campaign. John must have thought it needed lengthening.
LOL.. Unbiased in religions... for them there is no evidence of a God. I think I am in trouble now
??
I thought I have quoted over a dozen verses. And, unless you misunderstood what I wrote, all the gospels add to the truth of Jesus Christ.
Even as the prototype of sacrificing of the lamb in the Exodus or the two goats at the Temple with the laying on of hands, even so Jesus remains "the lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world". (At least in our understanding of Yeshua Hamashiach as believers)
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
From my understanding an apostle was any early follower and preacher for Jesus. The disciples were a special group of apostles. For example Paul was an apostle. He never was one of the twelve. He was not a disciple.
I'm not sure... and it seems a little contradictory in your statements.
1) You said that Mark wrote the biography according to Peter
2) Peter wasn't there
How does he know for certain who was there and who wasn't?
John, the beloved disciple, was there. I think he knows best
I believe he even mentions more women than the others... why? He was there Mine and those who were contemporary of the time when it was written.Ever wonder why no one disputed what was written during that time in that Gospel? Obviously, no one had a problem with it.
Actually... more. There are apostles today too. But of those who were with Jesus and personally taught by Jesus and approved, as mentioned in Acts, 12.
But you haven't proven that John wasn't there. But you are free to believe he wasn't even when he wrote that he was.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Or perhaps it is because scholarship was not as important in those days. You have to remember, most people were illiterate. The disciples were almost all illiterate. The Gospels were written by people that were educated in formal Greek. That would exclude almost every early follower of Jesus. That is one of the reasons that modern scholars do not think that the Gospels were written by the names on the titles of the Gospels.I'm not sure... and it seems a little contradictory in your statements.
1) You said that Mark wrote the biography according to Peter
2) Peter wasn't there
How does he know for certain who was there and who wasn't?
John, the beloved disciple, was there. I think he knows best
Ever wonder why no one disputed what was written during that time in that Gospel? Obviously, no one had a problem with it.