why was there Jesus

John's is pretty logically his. The gospels and letters were copied out and circulated among the churches. The earliest example of a gospel found was the Rylands papyrus, dated to only about 25 years after John's death. Rylands Library Papyrus P52 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
He wrote, "This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true." (John 21:24)

Also, his style of writing and the phrases he uses are the same as those in his epistles, one only has to read them to recognise this.

kidsagainstkows said:

also to jovia, do you think that we are better people? there are still thieves who steal repeatedly and other sinners.

i, for example, do believe that we are better people today than we were in the bronze age, but thats not because of Jesus, its because we as a society have been better able to discover what is right and wrong. if the day after jesus came back everything was rainbows and sunshine it would be different, but thats not how it was. it wasnt until the renaissance (the first rise of secularism) that things became markedly better for people.

Click to expand...

It does seem like people are better today than in other periods in history, although it has to be said that the 20th century had a lot of evil. The thing with Jesus dying for us is that his death has the power to make anyone perfect who wants to be perfect. This opened up the way to heaven and God's presence. But this doesn't take effect in this life in a full way. It is only when Jesus returns that the people who want what he did for them on the cross will suddenly be changed into perfectly loving saints.

Until that time someone who trusts in Jesus' atonement for them will manifest that trust in his/her actions. So someone who trusts in this should show moral improvement over time.

I think we get the idea of equality from the Bible, the idea that in some really fundamental way, everyone is equal. Rom 2:11 "There is no respect of person with God" because of the image of God. If you look at people from a physical point of view, no two people have equal abilities, skills, attributes, etc. So how else is everyone equal if it's not because of the image of God?

Also I'm guessing we get the idea of loving our enemies from the Bible. The idea of loving everyone regardless of what they have done. Matt 5:44 talks about this. Christopher Hitchens who is very anti-Christian says that this is a horrible, horrible doctrine, the idea of loving your enemies. I have a sense this indicates that most non-religious points of view probably wouldn't include this.

Another thing to remember is that some of the laws God gave the Israelites He gave because "of the hardness of [their] hearts" (Matt 19:8). They had an ancient near eastern culture with all of its problems and issues, and so God gave them the best laws that He knew would 'work' given how they were determined to act, that is, in ancient near eastern cultural ways.

kidsagainstkows said:

we get equality from the bible? do i really need to point out all of the places where homosexuals and women are to be treated like dirt? not to mention how to treat your slaves.

Click to expand...

As I understand it, slavery in the context of ancient Israel was more like a form of debt relief where someone could sell themselves into slavery if they couldn't pay for stuff, and they would get taken care of by the owner who had to treat them fairly. Here's a good link on the matter: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html

God loves homosexuals as much as he loves Jesus. There is no respect of persons with God, it says in Romans 2:11 and elsewhere. I personally don't know why God would forbid homosexual intercourse between two committed gay people, so I like the interpretations of Paul which say he was referring to something else. But even so, it does not change the fact God loves them.

also, dont make excuses for bad behavior. genocide is wrong no matter the time or place. child rape is wrong no matter time or place. that doesnt work and the fact that you think it would is nearly offensive.

Click to expand...

I was referring to the Old Testament laws rather than historical events, so I must have misinterpreted. I was referring to the Old Testament laws and I was saying that God compromised because the ancient Israelites were less moral than we are and so the laws were designed to manage the ways in which they were less moral.

I haven't looked at discussion of historical events, but I think this link would be a good place: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qamorite.html .

kidsagainstkows said:

Johns gospel was written between 90-110 CE. it was written in what is now Turkey by early gnostic christians who were bitter about the jewish church kicking them out and calling them false prophets.

Click to expand...

A lot of very good historians and theologians would strongly disagree with the hypothesis that John's Gospel was written by gnostic Christians. It clearly represents a somewhat different tradition than most of the rest of the N.T., but most would say that it is still within "orthodoxy" (for lack of a better label). Sometime in the 90s, probably in Ephesus, most likely. Some very good historians and theologians do maintain either that was either written, or redacted from something written, by "the disciple Jesus most loved" in collaboration with his community.

this is evidenced both by the strong anti-semitism in john

Click to expand...

Whether one finds John to be anti-semitic seems to depend on how one reads it.


Don't take hypotheses of certain sceptics as demonstrated fact.

kidsagainstkows said:

we get equality from the bible? do i really need to point out all of the places where homosexuals and women are to be treated like dirt? not to mention how to treat your slaves. also, dont make excuses for bad behavior.

Click to expand...

The bible says nothing about homosexuality - the concept of sexuality did not exist so it could not. Scripture appears to condemn certain actions, but it can say nothing about sexual orientation.

The New Testament strongly subverts the oppression of women - not least in Mary Magdalene in John as first witness to the resurrection and apostle to the apostles, Mary of Bethany being encouraged to take up the position of trainee Rabbi in Luke,... Even Genesis 1 for that matter.

Likewise, one of the big meta-narratives of the bible, Exodus and New Exodus is predicated on the assumption that slavery is wrong and freeing of slaves is a good thing. The letter to Philemon is a bomb on a slow fuse for anyone wanting to continue slavery as before....

Of course in different times and places the church has done a good job of covering all that up - but in the long run the narratives win out in ways like commands of the form "do not..." do not.

genocide is wrong no matter the time or place. child rape is wrong no matter time or place.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. But it still happened and it got written into the story of a very fallible people trying to understand what it meant to be the People of God and failing dismally at it.

kidsagainstkows said:

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

does that sound like indentured servitude to you?

Click to expand...

First of all God made provisions that these slaves should be protected and loved:

"Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD." Lev 19:18. A foreigner was a neighbour, so foreign slave should be loved.

"However, there should be no poor among you, for in the land the LORD your God is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will richly bless you, if only you fully obey the LORD your God and are careful to follow all these commands I am giving you today." (Deut 15.4) By implication all slaves should have decent living standards.

Slaves cannot be hurt or they will be immediately free: "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished (Ex 21.20, NIV), "If a man hits a manservant or maidservant in the eye and destroys it, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the eye. And if he knocks out the tooth of a manservant or maidservant, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the tooth. (Ex 21.26-27)

Slaves can run away at any time if they feel like they are being oppressed and must be let free. "If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand him over to his master. Let him live among you wherever he likes and in whatever town he chooses. Do not oppress him." (Deut 23.15)

According to one commentator: "[This] would have the effect of turning slavery into a voluntary institution."

if your referring to laws and not events (as i was) how about these

if a man lies with man, kill them both (lev)

if you have a rebellious son, kill him (lev)

the penalty for apostasy is death (lev or deut i forget)

Click to expand...

I think that ancient near east cultures probably all had laws that were as harsh as this, and they would have approved of them. The laws God gave to Moses involved a compromise because the ancient Israelites were disobedient (Mark 10:5). We have to keep that in mind. Secondly, if the law is evil then why does it say you shall love your neighbour as yourself in Leviticus 19:18, and that there should be no poor people among you in Deut 15:4, and in Deut 17:19 "Cursed is the man who withholds justice from the alien, the fatherless or the widow." The intentions behind the law were loving, even if it seems hard to see. Thirdly, when Jesus came to the world he said to someone who committed adultery to go and sin no more and did not stone her, and Jesus gave the Mosaic law so the laws intentions must be other than the implication.

If I could go back to the original OP, I believe Jesus came to tell the Jews something about God and the salvation of mankind that they had overlooked. Jesus' message and sacrifice had to be an eternal offering (past and future), and if He is God, then this message and eternal offering was always always available to us.

As with anything to do with God, there's more mystery (to the human mind) than there is common sense. The only way to accept Jesus is to accept him as he is in the gospels, and it takes great faith to believe in him. Faith, I personally believe is given to those who seek him with all their heart, soul, and mind.

just because other laws at that time were equally harsh, does not make them right. i will state again that wrong is wrong no matter the time or place.

Click to expand...

You make a good point. I believe Jesus statement regarding divorce would also apply here : "He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you...". This allowance for slavery was not the ideal but because of the hardness of the Israelites heart the law made allowances. The betterment of Gods people was a ongoing process from darkness to light. God called them out to a higher standard then their neighbors but it was not yet the perfect standard of Christ because they were not able to bear it.

kidsagainstkows said:

that's very interesting, you still say that because resurrection is important, it happened when this is not necessarily true. as i stated before it seems clear that the deciples believed christ rose, its not clear that he actually did it.

Click to expand...

Interesting. So eyewitness accounts of Christ's physical life after His crucifixion aren't valid to you. What exactly can you take from history, then?

kidsagainstkows said:

keep in mind that the bible was not written by eye witnesses it is all hearsay in regards to christ (some of the letters are verified to be written by paul). in fact, matt and luke used mark as a source.

Click to expand...

Um, not the case. John? 1 John?

In point of fact Matthew and Luke both contain independent and variant accounts from Mark, as well as unique accounts among themselves, and common accounts between themselves that're not in Mark. It's generally accepted that Luke and Matthew had Mark and another manuscript among their sources. It is rejected that this was their only source, and it is only accepted among liberal scholars that Matthew and Luke were not recounting stories from eyewitnesses (which frankly, if Mark were recording eyewitness accounts, and Luke & Matthew copied them ... what's your point, again?).

kidsagainstkows said:

Johns gospel was written between 90-110 CE.

Click to expand...

Realize there are a number of really strong paleographers and New Testament linguists who would smile and say, "no, that's not really the case". The internal information in John makes that view implausible. John expects his readers to know about Jewish feasts, and doesn't describe them well (often not at all) for Gentiles. Bultmann's claim that John makes no attempt to saying it was written by an eyewitness, gets the stuffing kicked out of it by John 21:24 and 19:35.

The description of places & events is detailed; it doesn't indicate that their significance hadn't dimmed. Yet in 60 years, the significance of these minor details should've dimmed significantly. Jerusalem and its surroundings (pools, temples, areas just outside Jerusalem walls destroyed in the Jewish War) is described as pre-war locations, prior to its destruction in 70 AD.

If John were composed after 70 AD -- it would've required source material with a great deal of written detail, detail that would not have been mentioned 50-60 years later by someone who was a firsthand eyewitness by that time (he'd have no reason to), and would not have been recorded by someone who realized the details were so pointless, and would not have been known at all by someone who was not an eyewitness. It's quite plausible, even more plausible that John was one of the earlier compositions in the Christian community, written by an eyewitness and probably reviewed by multiple eyewitnesses to reach its current polished form.

kidsagainstkows said:

it was written in what is now Turkey by early gnostic christians who were bitter about the jewish church kicking them out and calling them false prophets.

Click to expand...

Huh? Gnostics? Who had never visited Jerusalem?

kidsagainstkows said:

this is evidenced both by the strong anti-semitism in john as well as a very mystic jesus (as opposed to mark, the first gospel that was written).

Click to expand...

So you're saying Jesus was not that kind of man, but Mark, who traditionally wrote "what he could remember from what Peter said", Mark knows Jesus better?

The "strong anti-semitism", put in the context of Jewish factions, comes out very differently. There're Galileans (cited in John), as well as Judeans and Hellenists. There's a natural dislike on display for the Judeans, who seem to be supportive of the corrupt Sanhedrin and of Herod's rule -- a rule which ultimately condemned Jesus.

kidsagainstkows said:

P52 was hidden by the Essenes around twenty-five years after the book is written. this was shortly before they were destroyed.

Click to expand...

Um, yeah. You're saying they were destroyed 135 AD? I know of no evidence p52 was actually in the custody of the Essenes in the first place.

kidsagainstkows said:

The letters may have been written by the author of John. or possibly a good psuedo-John (just as many of the books are psuedo-Paul). it is however clear, that they were not written by john the deciple, or john the baptist.

Click to expand...

There's substantial common-lexical evidence the books (particularly and with other text-type support, 1 John) are all written by one common author. It's entirely unclear and internal self-assertion leads to a flat out recognition: they were written by a disciple.

kidsagainstkows said:

to ebia: i was referring to the taking the promised land when i talked about genocide and child rape. this was not done by fallible men, but directed by god himself (btw in response to my other thread about why doesnt god just tell us he exists, he doesnt seem to have a problem with direct communication here, why does he now?)

When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations—the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you- 2 and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. [a] Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. 3 Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, 4 for they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods, and the LORD's anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you. (deut 7:1)

Click to expand...

I believe I've just addressed this in the other thread, so I won't bother repeating things here.

kidsagainstkows said:

after reading john thoroughly, i can see some clearly anti-semetic overtones, especially when Jesus deals with the pharisees.

Click to expand...

John is easy to read anti-semetic ideas back into for a number of reasons, (not least because, for John, "the Jews" and "the Judeans" is the same word and the translators have to make a choice about that), but its going a step too far to say it is actually anti-semetic. It has certainly been used to justify anti-semitism from very early on, but I don't read it as intending that, and neither do many (most?) scholars understanding it in its historical context.

and you are correct at the end of the day John was declared orthodox, by both the Catholics and the gnostics, that does not mean however that john is not a strange book when compared to the synoptics and definitely has a much more mystical jesus than them

Click to expand...

I wouldn't say it is strange. It is much less of a simple telling and much more of a reflection than the other gospels, it clearly represents a distinct tradition and at least a lifetime's mulling over the meaning of Jesus' life, teaching, death and resurrection.

kidsagainstkows said:

you forget that slaves are not people, they are property, and they are to be treated with the respect and care as any other property, namely none.

Click to expand...

I think Christos Anesti makes a good point, and so slavery was a compromise, but it is not quite like this. This is true for chattel slavery but not 'debt relief' slavery.

"The Mosaic law contains numerous initiatives designed to preclude someone having to consider voluntary slavery as an option:

"Pentateuchal prescriptions are meant to mitigate the causes of and need for such bondservice. Resident aliens, orphans and widows are not to be abused, oppressed or deprived of justice. When money is lent to the poor, they are not to be charged interest." "There were not supposed to be any poor in Israel at all!"

"But God is a realist (Deut 15.11!); hence He made a wide range of provisions in the Law for the poor [one of which is slavery as a form of debt relief]"

If this is the purpose of slavery then how can this be the case?

"He is to be treated as a man hired from year to year; you must see to it that his owner does not rule over him ruthlessly." (Lev 25.53)

So they were not to be treated as property but as indentured servants. The Hebrew word for slave is vague and can simply mean someone in an inferior position, so it did not have the raw power of the modern use of the word 'slave'. Let me clarify that slavery is wrong, by the way, so there's a compromise.

its interesting that you ended your if a slave is beaten scripture there. the next verse is
"Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money."

in other words if the slave suffers a day or two then dies, the slave holder isnt punished at all. and it again reinforces slaves a property (i was looking for that verse earlier and couldnt find it so thanks for pointing it out to me).

Click to expand...

But if the slave hurts himself in a permanent way then he is immediately set free; if they feel they are being oppressed they can run away and they will be free; and they should have decent living standards (by implication of the 'there shall be no poor among you' verse).

just because other laws at that time were equally harsh, does not make them right. i will state again that wrong is wrong no matter the time or place.

Click to expand...

I agree that slavery is wrong I just want to point out that it is not quite as the implication.

kidsagainstkows said:

you forget that slaves are not people, they are property, and they are to be treated with the respect and care as any other property, namely none.

Click to expand...

Just for the record, First Century Gentile treatment of slaves was nothing like this, either.

Slaves were generally considered permanent, minor members of a household in Roman Empire. They did not have the privileges of citizenship. While they were not afforded the rights of those in their majority, nor did they have the rights we afford humans today in free societies, they were well above and beyond the rights of total ownership that developed during the "humanist" Enlightenment period, the serf system of the medieval period, and the industrialized agricultural system of slavery that developed in the 1800's.