@pb1022 saidI'm not in the habit of lying on the internet. You may be judging me by your own standards.
@avalanchethecat
Are you standing by your statement that you read the Gospels “a whole bunch of times” after you decided they weren’t true?
Are you standing by your statement that you looked into the Holy Bible “extensively?”
It’s obvious both those statements by you are false. Why not admit it? It’s not like anyone believes them anyway 😉
@avalanchethecat saidWhat are you talking about?!
Most people don't use patronising and insulting pet-names and then say they do so out of fondness for the person to whom they're being consciously and deliberately unpleasant, but hey, takes all sorts.
You’re the one calling me “champ.”
@avalanchethecat saidIf you want evidence, just use the Internet. I’m sure you’ll find some.
No, because I'm aware that there is no proof.
@avalanchethecat saidYou may not be in the “habit” of lying on the Internet, but you sure did when you claimed to have read the Gospels “a whole bunch of times” after deciding they were false and when you claimed to have looked into the Holy Bible “extensively.”
I'm not in the habit of lying on the internet. You may be judging me by your own standards.
Those were two big whoppers 😉
- Joined
- 28 Jul 07
- Moves
- 164186
@pb1022 saidThe gospel of John is thought to be written between 60 and 80 years after jesus died. It isn't an eye witness account but a rhetorical document attempting to put in writing the idea that jesus was the son of God.
No, they’re not.
John the Apostle, who wrote the Gospel of John, was an eyewitness to everything he wrote. And there are many more eyewitness accounts in the Holy Bible,
Surprised you don’t know this considering you read the Gospels “a whole bunch of times” after you decided they weren’t true 😉
@neilarini saidWhat’s your source for that?
The gospel of John is thought to be written between 60 and 80 years after jesus died. It isn't an eye witness account but a rhetorical document attempting to put in writing the idea that jesus was the son of God.
@neilarini saidFrom gotquestions.org:
The gospel of John is thought to be written between 60 and 80 years after jesus died. It isn't an eye witness account but a rhetorical document attempting to put in writing the idea that jesus was the son of God.
Summary of the Gospel of John
Author: John 21:20–24 describes the author of the gospel of John as “the disciple whom Jesus loved,” and for both historical and internal reasons this is understood to be John the Apostle, one of the sons of Zebedee (Luke 5:10).
Date of Writing: Discovery of certain papyrus fragments dated around AD 135 require the gospel of John to have been written, copied, and circulated before then. And, while some think it was written before Jerusalem was destroyed (AD 70), AD 85—90 is a more accepted time for the writing of the gospel of John.
Purpose of Writing: The author cites the purpose of the gospel of John as follows: “But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name” (John 20:31). Unlike the three Synoptic Gospels, John’s purpose is not to present a chronological narrative of the life of Christ but to display His deity. John sought to strengthen the faith of second-generation believers and bring about faith in others, but he also sought to correct a false teaching that was spreading in the first century. John emphasized Jesus Christ as “the Son of God,” fully God and fully man, contrary to a false doctrine that taught the “Christ-spirit” came upon the human Jesus at His baptism and left Him at the crucifixion.
https://www.gotquestions.org/Gospel-of-John.html
4 edits
The gospel of John is thought to be written between 60 and 80 years after jesus died. It isn't an eye witness account but a rhetorical document attempting to put in writing the idea that jesus was the son of God.
I doubt that there is no eyewitness testimony in John.
Verses read very much like personal eyewitness accounts.
John does tell us in his epistle that they used their eyes, hearing, and hands to handled even the Word of life - Jesus Christ. That is pretty personal.
"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we beheld and our hands handled, concerning the Word of life." (1 John 1:1)
Style is so similar to the Gospel of John. The writer wants the audience to "have fellowship with us". Meaning those who saw, heard, handled Jesus Christ - "the Word . . . became flesh" (John 1:14)
The writer of the Gospel of John puts his personal testimonial on the fact that he witnessed blood and water come out of the wounded side of Jesus on the cross.
"The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man and of the other man who had been crucified with Him. But coming to Jesus, when they saw that He had already died, they did not break His legs;
But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately there came our blood and water.
And he who has seen this has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he says what is true, that you also may believe." (John 19:32-34)
I think this is John's personal testimonial that he actually was standing there to see what gushed out of the body of Jesus.
In essence, I think the testimonial is consistent with much of his intention in First John - Jesus Christ was in the flesh - a real man. He was not a phantasm as the Gnostics taught. He was not TOO GOOD to be flesh / material.
" Look, I actually SAW the blood and water gush out of His corpse there on the cross. He was a flesh and blood man. But He was the Logos of God - God Himself become a man."
I suspect something else is going on there with some who want to say John is only rhetorical and not containing any eye witness testimony.
Welcome to the Forum if you are new here.
Further comments?
@avalanchethecat saidThere is a difference between looking at something and drawing a conclusion and hearing testimony about something.
Well at least these assumptions do have an evidential basis. The assumptions made by those who follow the bible are all based on heresay, are they not?
Heresay: hear·say (hîr′sā′ ) n. 1. Unverified information heard or received from another
@kellyjay saidHow do you mean?
There is a difference between looking at something and drawing a conclusion and hearing testimony about something.
@avalanchethecat saidSpoken/written testimony is direct evidence we can also have expert opinion and things of that nature. Circumstantial is when we give explanation to things that may or may not have direct bearing in what we are talking about. So do we have reasons to believe or disbelieve testimony, are all the things said about the things in question valid? We can have trustworthy people giving explanations, that doesn’t always translate into they are right.
How do you mean?