Jesus Christ, the Sun of God

Old ass man with the "I know you are but what am I" reply to every other thing I say.

Wow @ how low of a level I stooped to even entertaining this debate.

And you're asking me to take quotes from the same book with preposterous stories as fact. God didn't create man out of dirt. Noah's Ark never happened. God didn't create woman out of a fucking rib. Why should I believe any story out of that book?

 

You call the use of profanity debate? Some one challenges your make believe world and you start calling them names? That must have won you a lot of points on the debate team.

At least three different people have shown you the obvious flaws in your "Truth" that you used to start this thread and this is the best you can come up with. Come on show us some of that "any kind of scholastic level" that you seem so proud of.

 

Hmm....now you know how all of us feel .

And by the way, don't ever call OWB that again. He's more intellectual, more considerate to other's feelings and more of a debater than you could ever pray to your sun gods to be.

 

I am also fairly convinced that the very first martyrs (the apostles etc) wouldn't have died for a lie they invented, esp. AFTER the Temple had been destroyed. If the purpose of Jesus was to incite the Jews to rebellion 1) they failed because it wasn't the Christians and 2) the rebellion failed (twice).

No reasonable person would invent a deified human and then die for it.

 

Wrong. Who says it was John?

Did he sign it? No. It is anonymous like the rest of the Gospels.

I think the one that is closest to an eyewitness is Mark. Why? Because of the scene in the Garden of Gethsemane when a "certain young man" is caught by the Temple authority and runs away naked.

He does not say "By the way, my name is Mark". But this is the only gospel which records this event, and such an embarrassing detail would not be concocted unless it was probably true.

Tradition says that "Mark" the author was Mark, or John-Mark a disciple of Peter and companion into Rome.

Scholars, by the style of the text and language used, think it was probably written in rom around AD 65. John was written around AD 95 in someplace very Greek, Luke-Acts between AD 80 and 120 somewhere like Corinth and Matthew was written around AD 85 in Antioch.

 

This is several times now you have said the the books of the Bible were not written by those who they are ascribed to, just wondering why you believe that?

No one questioned the authorship of the books and letters in the first century when they would have known who wrote them and only centuries later was the authorship questioned and only after no eyewitnesses were left to disagree with them.

Modern criticism that says they were written by others, generally uses writing styles to say so but even modern writers, who we know what they wrote have used different writing styles so that is not proof of different authors.

 

Mark has no signature. It was first attributed to Mark in the 2nd Century.
Luke (in a very early Papyri) has no attributed author, but in 170 it is attributed to Luke.
Matthew has not signature, but it is not first-century tradition that ascribes it to Matthew the tax-collector.
John is attested as being by john in the 2nd Century from Ireneaus, who got it from so and so who got it from Polycarp. but we all know that if it isn't in the bible, it isn't necessary for salvation. in fact, in 170, some sources say that andrew helped John edit the book.


the gospels and Paul are two different things. the Gospels I believe were written by the communities or the people who we say now. (Like Mark is by one of Peter's companions, John is by his church he help keep going in Antioch) but that John sat down and penned it, I doubt. I believe he passed the story, message, and sayings onto his community and then someone or some people wrote it there.

The Pastorals I am more inclined to say that Paul was dead when they were written. They were written by Pauline communities to other communities to help correct unorthodox teaching and practice. Why say they are from Paul, well because it was common-place in antiquity to sign a philosophical document by the name of your master.

 

Thanks just wondering.

 

Who says it wasn't John? Why does John 21:24 say "This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true." ?

Why is the Gospel so simmilar to the Essene Scroll and Rule of the Community from the dead sea scrolls? It may have had earlier jewish origins.

 

The earth is as it is in heaven. The heavens is as it is on earth. Mirror mirror on the wall, who is the fairest of them all. Jesus was the sun. And he still is. Venus revolves around the sun, but so does Saturn. Get outside, and see if you can look the son in the eye? For it will be the same looking him in the eye when he is on earth, when the sun is black up there, but shining down here.

 

My point was that the gospels sometimes identify themselves as a person writing (like what happens at the end of John), but the original Gospels were anonymous. It became identified with John later. Most likely because it was from the community John was from or traveled to. If you look closely at the passage you quoted, "we know" signifies that it wasn't John who really wrote it down. He probably composed it, but who passed along the knowledge of Jesus to these people who put it to paper, and they know it is true because of some other reason (Possibly Paul's preaching too?)

I don't know about your claim about Essenes. I do no think so because the Gospel of John is very Greek in nature. Do you have a citation to confirm this?

 

Research, lol.

 

In the quote that I posted it said John "wrote" down. So yes others edited or revised it, but John like you said composed much of the material. Who knows how much. It may have been written in stages with the first draft written years earlier by John. I guess we'll just have to trust the editor (Andrew?).

When you said "WRONG" in your previous post it reminded me of the Mclauglin Group.

 

http://www.thedevineevidence.com/jesus_similarities.html


Good stuff

 

Good read. Wonder what our resident troll, J.Q will say?

 

A main focus in the Gospel of John is the idea of light vs. dark. Jesus is even called the "light". One of the main focal points in Essene belief is this idea of light vs. darkness. For example:

"All the children of righteousness are ruled by the Prince of light and walks in the ways of light, but all the children of falsehood are ruled by the angel of darkness and walk in the ways of darkness."

and

"For it is through the spirit of true counsel concerning the ways of man that all his sins shall be expiated that he may contemplate the light of life."

Jesus is called the light of life in John 8:12.

There isn't a direct link between the Gospel and the scrolls but many of the ideas are very similar.

 

Most modern scholars say it wasn't John the Apostle. Meyer Marvin even claims it was Mary Magdeline.

 

LMAO hold up

You believe a man walked on water and fed 5000 people with a fish.

And another man lived to be 950 and spent 100 of those years making a boat for God. Then he got every animal on Earth to coexist on that boat for 40 days and 40 nights while God gave the world a bath.

And God made man out of dirt and woman out of one of his leftover ribs.

But I'm the one living in a make believe world?

LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

 

LMAO @ "good read" like you really read all that shit. I prolly read more of it than you.

Could be wrong but it appears to be written by a Christian.

The same way there is no cold hard proof the story of Christ was borrowed, there is no cold hard proof that it wasn't simply because we can't go back in time and see what really happened.

I personally don't give a fuck whether or not Jesus actually existed, up until about a month or so ago, I thought he did. If I'm wrong about this I'll admit it. Like I said I aint really concerned with whether or not a person named Jesus Christ actually roamed Earth. It's more so how preposterous it is to believe he was so remarkable yet simple and very common details such as his date of birth and appearance are left up to our imaginations.

 

1. How would you know if I read it or not?
2. His birthday was not written down because we were not told to celebrate it.
3. His appearance was not supposed to be the most important thing. That's why we're not told of him. We're told he was a simple, plain looking man. His words and teachings are supposed to be what is remembered from him, not his appearance.