Zeus

Joshua_Masquelier said:

The NT are writings of the apostles and disciples of Jesus, not later scholars.

Click to expand...

Well, not quite.

The authors of the synoptic gospels drew upon an established tradition, rather than writing independent eyewitness accounts.

And the gospel of "John" tells us more about the discourses gentile Christianity was faced with in the late 1st/early 2nd century than about the early 30s in Judaea/Galilaea.

Paul, in turn, did not even know Jesus and had no first-hand knowledge of his ministry.

Joshua_Masquelier said:

The NT are writings of the apostles and disciples of Jesus, not later scholars.

Click to expand...

Also, Joshua, from an Islamic mindset, we would consider the disciples scholars as well. We view the companions of Muhammad (s) as the most knowledgeable of scholars in our history, for example, yet we do not take the individual opinion of one of them as final authority.

We do have the concept of consensus though, of which there are two levels. If A LOT of companions all voiced the same opinion and no one among the companions contradicted it then it is of a higher level than of only one, or a few, companions holding an opinion and no one contradicting it. In these cases, the companions' COLLECTIVE opinion is looked at as authority because the Prophet Muhammad said, 'My nation will not AGREE upon falsehood.' In the cases where the companions contradicted themselves, then their opinions are not held as an authority, but only as a means to help us understand.

And God knows best.

Joshua_Masquelier said:

The NT are writings of the apostles and disciples of Jesus, not later scholars.

Click to expand...

Or so Christians claim.

Well, not quite.

The authors of the synoptic gospels drew upon an established tradition, rather than writing independent eyewitness accounts.

Click to expand...

These historical writings were known teachings and happenings in His ministry which was common knowledge among the apostles, later put into writing. Each Gospel offers unique details. Luke for instance, a disciple of the Apostles, includes information which he received from them directly.

And the gospel of "John" tells us more about the discourses gentile Christianity was faced with in the late 1st/early 2nd century than about the early 30s in Judaea/Galilaea.

Click to expand...

John's Gospel is truly unique. The style of the Gospel is exactly that of his letters 1,2, and 3 John. Therefore there are 4 documents of the same author, with a distinct style of authorship, written by a man that one would rightly conlclude knew the Lord Jesus not only directly but intimately.

I have 1 John memorized. The style of the writing and the material therein is in perfect harmony with his Gospel account.

Paul, in turn, did not even know Jesus and had no first-hand knowledge of his ministry.

Click to expand...

He didn't claim to walk with Jesus in the flesh. He said he received wisdom by revelation, to bring the message of the Hebrew Messiah to the world of the Gentiles (Eph 3:2-4, Rom 15:15). Since while Jesus was in the flesh, His ministry was not for the Gentiles (Mark 7:25-30, Mat 10:5-6). The wisdom of the Gospel required a man born out of due time (1 Cor 15:7-9) to bring the Gospel to the Gentiles, since Israel in the flesh had rejected the Messiah in the flesh. Interesting how this man -

For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. (1 Cor 15:9)

was chosen in this way -

And he said, “Who are You, Lord?” Then the Lord said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. It is hard for you to kick against the goads.” (Acts 9:5)

to bring the Gospel to those not born in National Israel.

He never claimed to know the Lord Jesus in the flesh, but he was given direction, as a prophet, to speak His words to the Gentiles. I find it interesting how a man that hated the church and despised the Lord Jesus, being a Pharisee of the Pharisees, would choose to throw all of his prominent earthly heritage away to die for the sake of the Gospel.

Phil 3:7-9

7 But what things were gain to me, these I have counted loss for Christ. 8 Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith;

2 Corinthians 11:22-33

22 Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? So am I. 23 Are they ministers of Christ?—I speak as a fool—I am more: in labors more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequently, in deaths often. 24 From the Jews five times I received forty stripes minus one. 25 Three times I was beaten with rods; once I was stoned; three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I have been in the deep; 26 in journeys often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils of my own countrymen, in perils of the Gentiles, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; 27 in weariness and toil, in sleeplessness often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness— 28 besides the other things, what comes upon me daily: my deep concern for all the churches. 29 Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is made to stumble, and I do not burn with indignation?
30 If I must boast, I will boast in the things which concern my infirmity. 31 The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is blessed forever, knows that I am not lying. 32 In Damascus the governor, under Aretas the king, was guarding the city of the Damascenes with a garrison, desiring to arrest me; 33 but I was let down in a basket through a window in the wall, and escaped from his hands.

1 John and the gospel of John are sufficiently similar in style to assume they've been written by the same author. 2 and 3 John, however, do not fit the bill. In fact, they are so obviously different from the other two Johannine texts that it was detected long before the advent of higher criticism, in the days of the first Church fathers. Eusebius held that 2 and 3 John were written by John the Elder rather than John the Apostle, for example.

The same can be said about Revelation - although the special nature of that book may justify its... stylistic irregularities.

Hi Willow,

I encourage you to re-read 1,2, and 3 John and see how they are in harmony stylistically. I just read 2 and 3 John and easily picked out a handful of verses which have the same message and style as those in 1 John. It is easy to conclude that they are written by the same author.

Revelation is an enigma and meant to be so.

Wicked Willow said:

Well, not quite.

The authors of the synoptic gospels drew upon an established tradition, rather than writing independent eyewitness accounts.

And the gospel of "John" tells us more about the discourses gentile Christianity was faced with in the late 1st/early 2nd century than about the early 30s in Judaea/Galilaea.

Paul, in turn, did not even know Jesus and had no first-hand knowledge of his ministry.

Click to expand...

It's interesting. Tradition does not have all the Gospels authors as eyewitness accounts. Tradition attributes Mark to a scribe of Simon Peter, and Luke to a companion of St Paul- two roles that would not necessarily mean the author would have to have been an eyewitness. My personal view is that Mark was written by a scribe of Simon Peter, Luke and Matthew used material from both Mark and a hypothetical Q document, and that John was written by a companion of Jesus' 'beloved disciple', the mysterious disciple who is unnamed throughout the Gospel. Perhaps all the Gospels were written using earlier eyewitness accounts- who knows?

Prajna said:

Who believes in mythological religions? Worshiping the bible which talks about talking snakes, Giants, burning bushes, and 7 headed beasts is the equivalent of believing in centaurs, hydras, nymphs, and Minotaurs. Prove me wrong.

Click to expand...

All of them. Prove me wrong.

Agonaces of Susa said:

All of them. Prove me wrong.

Click to expand...

Meh. I believe in mythological religions. They all existed.

Mythology. n. 1. A religion that is no longer practiced. 2. Any religion I don't agree with.

Or perhaps we should try Ambrose Bierce's defintion?

MYTHOLOGY, n. The body of a primitive people's beliefs concerning its origin, early history, heroes, deities and so forth, as distinguished from the true accounts which it invents later.

Click to expand...

Late to the party, but:

JJWhite said:

Since y'all bring up the creationism VS evolution deal, I thought I'd share a theory I've come up with.


So, basically, what I'm saying is: WHO WAS ADAM COMING IN SUCCESSION AFTER? There must have been something on earth BEFORE? And according to my theory here, it would have been a creation that caused destruction and shed blood, since the angels were concerned about that.

So, my GUESS is that maybe God created the first of our particular species with His own Hands as an honor as indicated in the Holy Scriptures. There may have been OTHER species that he chose to create through evolution that lived prior to that.

I wonder if anyone else has thought of it too.

Click to expand...

It's exactly the way I read the Biblical account the first time I ever read it. The idea was never challenged in the era that pre-dated Christianity, nor in the early Church. Not that all accepted it, but even if there were those that didn't, they didn't debate it. (And apparently Ev comes from the Jewish Kabballah (sp?)

Irrelevant OP:

Prajna said:

Worshiping the bible

Click to expand...

Nobody worships the Bible. Thread FAIL!

Carry on w/ unrelated but much more interesting conversation

Booko said:

Meh. I believe in mythological religions. They all existed.

Click to expand...

Do you believe in Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn?

razeontherock said:

Nobody worships the Bible.

Click to expand...

Sometimes it sure seems like it. I've even watched as it was put on equal footing with the Spirit of God.

.

Agonaces of Susa said:

Do you believe in Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn?

Click to expand...

Yup. I'm fond of astronomy.

I believe in Uranus too, in case you were wondering.

dlamberth said:

Sometimes it sure seems like it. I've even watched as it was put on equal footing with the Spirit of God.

.

Click to expand...

I've seen Christians themselves talk about "Bibliolatry." It made sense enough to me, in the context the term was used.