muhammad_isa
Well-Known Member
We have no surviving written texts by Jesus and His disciples, no.
Perhaps they got destroyed by Roman authority?
..and God knows best.
..but to completely discredit the NT and apocrytha is a big ask.
-
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!
Myth Or History?
- Thread starter PearlSeeker
- Start date
Perhaps they got destroyed by Roman authority?
..and God knows best.
..but to completely discredit the NT and apocrytha is a big ask.
PearlSeeker
Well-Known Member
Agree. That's why I believe Jesus was a real person and some events in the gospels are most probably true.
PearlSeeker
Well-Known Member
Who are the authors and what did they witness?
[/QUOTE]
wrong:
1 John 1
King James Version
1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
Looks like first person to me.
muhammad_isa
Well-Known Member
Do you seriously not know?
Wikipedia, while not always accurate, is a good source on the topic.
A lot of texts in the NT are written by Paul [Saul] of Tarsus.
He was a major person in the conversion of many 'goy' [non-Jews].
Paul was reasonably well educated and a Jew [pharisee].
The gospels are anonymous, despite being "according to Matthew" etc. according to scholars.
The Nag Hamedi library also provides some insight into the various beliefs around in the first few centuries AD..
Jesus is a real person, and it is independently verified [not Bible] that it "was believed" that he was crucified. i.e. died on a cross/stake
Any questions?
All I did was use the same method you have. You make statements without supportive documentation. I got so tired of dealing with that, I decided to use the same method.
Ella S.
Well-Known Member
All I did was use the same method you have. You make statements without supportive documentation. I got so tired of dealing with that, I decided to use the same method.
Provide me a single statement that I made that needs supportive documentation.
wrong:
1 John 1
King James Version
1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
Looks like first person to me.
You think the person who wrote 1 John wrote the Book of Kings??
Think before posting, Kenny.
PearlSeeker
Well-Known Member
You said it yourself.Do you seriously not know?
Wikipedia, while not always accurate, is a good source on the topic.
A lot of texts in the NT are written by Paul [Saul] of Tarsus.
He was a major person in the conversion of many 'goy' [non-Jews].
Paul was reasonably well educated and a Jew [pharisee].
The gospels are anonymous, despite being "according to Matthew" etc. according to scholars.
The Nag Hamedi library also provides some insight into the various beliefs around in the first few centuries AD..
Jesus is a real person, and it is independently verified [not Bible] that it "was believed" that he was crucified. i.e. died on a cross/stake
Any questions?
Paul is not really a witness. He never met Jesus. He only had a vision after falling from his horse (and probably hitting his head)... Gospels are anonymous... Nag Hamady library provides info on some beliefs...
Yes, a few bits of historical data can be reconstructed from Christian writings using some analitical principles ("embarrassment"...)...
So far no witnesses.
PearlSeeker
Well-Known Member
wrong:
1 John 1
King James Version
1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
Looks like first person to me.[/QUOTE]
First Epistle of John - Wikipedia
1 John 1
King James Version
1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
Looks like first person to me.
[/QUOTE]First Epistle of John - Wikipedia
we are talking about two different things...You think the person who wrote 1 John wrote the Book of Kings??
Think before posting, Kenny.
First Epistle of John - Wikipedia[/QUOTE]wrong:
1 John 1
King James Version
1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
Looks like first person to me.
Nothing like biased based wikipedia
Now... let me ask you a question...
Just what does that first sentence say?
And for your further growth:
Did John Write John? The Evidence is Clear.
And so many others that are readily available.
we are talking about two different things...
1 John mentions neither of the prophecies you've mentioned thus far, so indeed we must be. Let us take one at a time: how did you determine the Kings prophecy account is from eyewitnesses? Or that the testimony of said eyewitnesses is plausible?
Nothing like biased based wikipedia
Now... let me ask you a question...
Just what does that first sentence say?
And for your further growth:
Did John Write John? The Evidence is Clear.
And so many others that are readily available.
*spits out drink*
I'm sorry, and you think the National Catholic Register is an unbiased source of information about the Bible? Jesus, Kenny.
InChrist
Free4ever
Well, for one thing the OT biblical accounts are about real historical people and places which have been verified by archeologists.
As an example, there are 29 kings mentioned in the Bible from Egypt, Israel, Moab, Damascus, Tyre, Babylon, Assyria, and Persia. Many of these kings are not only mentioned in the Bible, but their names were engraved on monuments discovered by archeologists.
I believe the biblical accounts because they are history, unlike mythological stories of Zeus, etc.
DNB
Christian
Paul never fell off a horse, ...maybe even in his entire life.
DNB
Christian
You are asking for facts - when you cannot even come up with one yourself????
When did God regret the deluge???
PearlSeeker
Well-Known Member
Exactly. Try some unbiased sites. For example:Nothing like biased based wikipedia
Now... let me ask you a question...
Just what does that first sentence say?
And for your further growth:
Did John Write John? The Evidence is Clear.
And so many others that are readily available.
Question: Why is there doubt about authorship of John, 1 John, 2 John, and 3 John?
[Hugo] Mendez’s answer: Traditionally, these four texts were credited to a single person—the apostle John, one of the three closest disciples to Jesus. The explanation made some sense; the four texts are strikingly similar in their language and ideas. But the texts themselves don’t tell us who their authors are. They are more or less anonymous. The Gospel of John, the largest of the four, presents itself as the work of an eyewitness—a “disciple whom Jesus loved” (chapter 21 verse 24)—but we never get the name of that disciple. 1 John is strictly anonymous, but also claims to be the work of an eyewitness (chapter 1, verse 1). 2 and 3 John present themselves as letters by a nameless “elder.”
About a century ago, however, scholars looked more closely at the language of these texts and realized that for all their similarities, they couldn’t have been written by the same author. The texts were written in Greek, and the Greek used is a bit different between them. So instead, scholars have speculated that these texts might be so similar because they were written by members of the same community: the “Johannine community”—a kind of lost breakaway Christian sect or movement. And they’ve imagined the authors of these texts as real members of that community.
So it’s been a mystery, a riddle. For a century, we’ve been trying to get into these texts, and put together clues as to who the real author or authors of these texts may have been.
In my research, I argue that the “disciple” is unlikely to be historical. He appears in the Gospel of John several times—standing under Jesus’ cross with several women (chapter 19, verses 25–27) running with Peter to Jesus’ tomb (chapter 20, verses 3–10). But when you look at all those same scenes in other gospels, there’s no trace of the character. In Luke, only women stand under Jesus’ cross (chapter 21, verse 49); and in Luke, Peter runs to the tomb alone (chapter 24, verse 12). It’s as if the character has been invented and inserted into those scenes to give the book the air of eyewitness credibility.
I also show that 1, 2 and 3 John participate in the same ruse. As scholars, we’ve been so certain that the texts have different authors that we’ve overlooked something very basic about them: they all seem to construct a common implied author. They all state or imply that they were written by an “eyewitness”—the same eyewitness—and they show extensive signs of copying, as we would expect in ancient forgeries.
Was the Bible’s Gospel of John author fake?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
wrong:
1 John 1
King James Version
1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
Looks like first person to me.[/QUOTE]
Looks like does not necessarily mean that it is.
Why can't it be a poetic verse?
1 John 1
King James Version
1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
Looks like first person to me.
[/QUOTE]Looks like does not necessarily mean that it is.
Why can't it be a poetic verse?