Can a believer...

[JoStories]

Paul was most certainly an apostle but not one of the 12. His assignment was as "an apostle to the nations"
"Apostle" simply means "one sent forth". Jesus too is called an apostle. (Heb 3:1) I think you need to get your facts straight.

Who said the NT books could not have been written by the apostles? What "well known fact" is that?....and who made the assertion? Is science now a replacement for God...it appears so for many...not for me though. I will take the word of God over the word of men any day.

The authors of the NT books are identified for the most part by themselves or by the things they wrote about. The apostle John for example never says that he is John but simply identifies himself as 'the one whom Jesus loved'. Since John was the one reclining in the 'bosom position' at mealtimes (the favored position) and he was the one to whom Jesus entrusted the care of his mother before he died, it is clear that John wrote the books assigned to him.

You are free to believe whatever you like, but your assertions do not hold water IMO.

Regarding what I underlined and put in bold, almost every credible theology scholar would agree and strongly so, that none of the gospels were written by the disciples. The books were written far too much later than the time frame of Christ and his apostles to have been written by them. You are free to believe whatever you like, but your assertions do not hold water with any serious student of theological history.

 

[Smart_Guy]

As a Muslim, I believe that God did not contact Muhammad directly, but instead used a messenger, Angel Gabriel, and that with the death of Muhammad, revelations stopped.

It is also believed that Islam was being revealed ever sense Adam and Eve descended earth, but put to scriptures with the start of the Abrahamic era. Yes, I believe Judaism and Christianity were introductions to Islam.

 

[LASTINGLIGHT]

Yes, I wondered about that. However, Marcion? He did not believe that Christ was the messiah. he rejected the Christ and thought he was sent by a monad, a concept from eastern Buddhist principles. He is considered more Gnostic than Christian. Do you really think he was the one who wrote these? His "Antithesis" does not make me think this.

The 11 books of Marcions bible were much shorter and conveyed a different message. I have read them all and I believe that Marcion did not cut out parts of the books, but that they are indeed older originals, added to later by others to solidify their theology. Marcion believed that the God of Jesus was not the God of the Jews. Some of the "church fathers" had not heard of Paul before Marcion.

 

[LASTINGLIGHT]

Luke 4:16-22...."And He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up; and as was His custom, He entered the synagogue on the Sabbath, and stood up to read. And the book of the prophet Isaiah was handed to Him. And He opened the book and found the place where it was written, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me,Because He anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor. He has sent Me to proclaim release to the captives,And recovery of sight to the blind,To set free those who are oppressed, To proclaim the favorable year of the Lord.” And He closed the book, gave it back to the attendant and sat down; and the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on Him. And He began to say to them, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.” And all were speaking well of Him, and wondering at the gracious words which were falling from His lips; and they were saying, “Is this not Joseph’s son?” (NASB)

Again Jesus qoutes the Greek Septuagint instead of the Hebrew text. More confirmation that Jesus was not a Hebrew but a Hellenized Jew speaking and reading GREEK .
Thank you for pointing this out to me.

 

[JayJayDee]

1. Anderson 2007, p. 19."These facts pose a major problem for the traditional view of John's authorship, and they are one of the key reasons critical scholars reject it."

2. Lindars, 1990, p. 20."It is thus important to see the reasons why the traditional identification is regarded by most scholars as untenable."

3. The New Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible: Volume 3 Abingdon Press, 2008. p. 362 "Presently, few commentators would argue that a disciple of Jesus actually wrote the Fourth Gospel,..."

4. Marilyn Mellowes The Gospel of John From Jesus to Christ: A Portrait of Jesus' World. PBS 2010-11-3. "Tradition has credited John, the son of Zebedee and an apostle of Jesus, with the authorship of the fourth gospel. Most scholars dispute this notion;..."

5. D. A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo. An introduction to the New Testament. Zondervan; 2 New edition. 2005. Pg 233 “The fact remains that despite support for Johannine authorship by a few front rank scholars in this century and by many popular writers, a large majority of contemporary scholars reject this view.”


Jesus was called an Apostle in Hebrews. Do you know who wrote Hebrews? Go online and find out. Your info comes from only one source.
How do you know that John was the one reclining in the bosom position? Same source?
The only original followers of Jesus to refer to Paul as an Apostle are Luke and once by Barnabas, who was quoted by Luke. Pauls only claim to being an Apostle is his own self-proclaiming.

Just as Jesus was not at all swayed by the "learned" men of religion in his day, so JW's are not swayed by the opinions of the "learned" men of religion who are recognized today. Theologians are men with opinions and beliefs of their own. They often transfer their own bias into their work.

"The canonicity of certain individual books of the Christian Greek Scriptures has been disputed by some, but the arguments against them are very weak. For critics to reject, for example, the book of Hebrews simply because it does not bear Paul’s name and because it differs slightly in style from his other letters is shallow reasoning. B. F. Westcott observed that “the canonical authority of the Epistle is independent of its Pauline authorship.” (The Epistle to the Hebrews, 1892, p. lxxi) Objection on the grounds of unnamed writership is far outweighed by the presence of Hebrews in the Chester Beatty Papyrus No. 2 (P⁠46) (dated within 150 years of Paul’s death), which contains it along with eight other letters of Paul."

Canon — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

Jesus did not choose learned men to build his congregation...he chose humble fishermen, a physician and a tax collector. (Acts 4:13)
Paul was an educated man but still worked as a humble tent-maker.

I have yet to see where his teachings contradict those of his Lord. Are you just taking someone else's word for this or do you have the scriptural proof. I'd like to see it.

 

[JoStories]

The 11 books of Marcions bible were much shorter and conveyed a different message. I have read them all and I believe that Marcion did not cut out parts of the books, but that they are indeed older originals, added to later by others to solidify their theology. Marcion believed that the God of Jesus was not the God of the Jews. Some of the "church fathers" had not heard of Paul before Marcion.

Marcion did not believe in the divinity of Jesus at all. I agree they convey a different message and most see his work as Gnostic which the early church fathers would have seen as heretical. But the point was that Marcion may or may not have known Paul or his teachings and further, his work is the antithesis of what Paul taught.

 

[LASTINGLIGHT]

Have you not ever read Marcions Bible?

 

[LASTINGLIGHT]

Just as Jesus was not at all swayed by the "learned" men of religion in his day, so JW's are not swayed by the opinions of the "learned" men of religion who are recognized today. Theologians are men with opinions and beliefs of their own. They often transfer their own bias into their work.

"The canonicity of certain individual books of the Christian Greek Scriptures has been disputed by some, but the arguments against them are very weak. For critics to reject, for example, the book of Hebrews simply because it does not bear Paul’s name and because it differs slightly in style from his other letters is shallow reasoning. B. F. Westcott observed that “the canonical authority of the Epistle is independent of its Pauline authorship.” (The Epistle to the Hebrews, 1892, p. lxxi) Objection on the grounds of unnamed writership is far outweighed by the presence of Hebrews in the Chester Beatty Papyrus No. 2 (P⁠46) (dated within 150 years of Paul’s death), which contains it along with eight other letters of Paul."

Canon — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

Jesus did not choose learned men to build his congregation...he chose humble fishermen, a physician and a tax collector. (Acts 4:13)
Paul was an educated man but still worked as a humble tent-maker.

I have yet to see where his teachings contradict those of his Lord. Are you just taking someone else's word for this or do you have the scriptural proof. I'd like to see it.

Paul Contradicts Jesus

There are many. Not going to waste my time typing out things that most every one else already knows.
You want to know, click there. "voiceofjesusdotorg".

I posted this on another topic. The contradictions are there. Although you may not be allowed to go to that website and read them. Jesus did not have an Apostle who was a physician.

 

[JayJayDee]

Paul Contradicts Jesus

There are many. Not going to waste my time typing out things that most every one else already knows.
You want to know, click there. "voiceofjesusdotorg".

I posted this on another topic. The contradictions are there. Although you may not be allowed to go to that website and read them. Jesus did not have an Apostle who was a physician.

Are you serious? That link was the greatest load of hogwash I have ever read! Plucking a verse here and there out of context to "prove" that Paul taught a different doctrine than Jesus is rather pathetic.

Only someone who has no idea what the Bible as a whole teaches would swallow that drivel.

I didn't say Luke was an apostle...I said he was a Bible writer....one of the authors used to write a portion of the NT.
And he was a physician.

 

[LASTINGLIGHT]

Are you serious? That link was the greatest load of hogwash I have ever read! Plucking a verse here and there out of context to "prove" that Paul taught a different doctrine than Jesus is rather pathetic.

Only someone who has no idea what the Bible as a whole teaches would swallow that drivel.

I didn't say Luke was an apostle...I said he was a Bible writer....one of the authors used to write a portion of the NT.
And he was a physician.

I see you lack the ability to understand anything cohesive. The pew research group was 100% right about JWs.
JoStories was right. "You are free to believe whatever you like, but your assertions do not hold water with any serious student of theological history."

 

[JayJayDee]

I see you lack the ability to understand anything cohesive. The pew research group was 100% right about JWs.
JoStories was right. "You are free to believe whatever you like, but your assertions do not hold water with any serious student of theological history."

And I understand spiritual blindness when I see it. Who on earth are the "pew research group"? They speak for God now do they? Human opinion is just that....open to being completely flawed as we all know.

In the Bible, it is the majority who are always in the wrong. It is the minority who hang onto truth in spite of being howled down for it. (Matt 7:13, 14; John 15:18-21) Be careful about popular opinion....that is what got Jesus executed.

Who were the "serious students of theological history" when Jesus walked the earth? He rejected their teachings as outright lies. He exposed those teachers for the self-righteous hypocrites they were.

Nothing has changed.

 

[leibowde84]

Moses, Abraham, Jesus, Paul, Muhammad, Joseph Smith, Bahaullah, and other prophets and people of God have heard God's voice directly and spoken for Him. This was not millions of centuries ago. This was practically yesterday.

If they can speak for God (or be God's reps) without refering to the Law, can a believer speak for God without refering to any scripture of their prophet or God?

Can we hear God through you and not through the prophets?

Taking out scripture intermedaries.

Thought at 1:45am give me a break

I think that all of the men you mentioned should be looked at with scrutiny. Jesus, for example, never wrote anything down himself. So, we don't know what he actually said. And, Paul claimed to speak for Jesus without having ever met the guy. I think that anyone who claims to speak for God should be questioned immensely.

 

[JoStories]

And I understand spiritual blindness when I see it. Who on earth are the "pew research group"? They speak for God now do they? Human opinion is just that....open to being completely flawed as we all know.

In the Bible, it is the majority who are always in the wrong. It is the minority who hang onto truth in spite of being howled down for it. (Matt 7:13, 14; John 15:18-21) Be careful about popular opinion....that is what got Jesus executed.

Who were the "serious students of theological history" when Jesus walked the earth? He rejected their teachings as outright lies. He exposed those teachers for the self-righteous hypocrites they were.

Nothing has changed.

Since that poster quoted me, I will say this to your question of who the serious students are. They are the Bart Erhman's, Karen King's, Matthew Fox, and a plethora more of PhD level theologian's that have studied the Bible and other faiths for most of their lives. Your statement about them not being around when Jesus lived, if he did, is ludicrous and even childish. These people I mentioned are alive now and agree that Paulian dogma is NOT that of what Christ taught. Its incredibly different.

 

[leibowde84]

Marcion did not believe in the divinity of Jesus at all. I agree they convey a different message and most see his work as Gnostic which the early church fathers would have seen as heretical. But the point was that Marcion may or may not have known Paul or his teachings and further, his work is the antithesis of what Paul taught.

Fantastic comment.

 

[LASTINGLIGHT]

Marcion did not believe in the divinity of Jesus at all. I agree they convey a different message and most see his work as Gnostic which the early church fathers would have seen as heretical. But the point was that Marcion may or may not have known Paul or his teachings and further, his work is the antithesis of what Paul taught.

The only atithesis of Marcion I read is on earlychristianwritings. Gnostic he was. But his Bible consisted of The Gospel Of The Lord and 10 Epistles of Paul. So he must have agreed with him to include them in his Bible. But they are not like the Epistles in the Orthodox Bible. Also Marcion makes a very good point about the God of the Hebrews not being the same as the spiritual God of Jesus. And I agree with him. During meditation I sense nothing except the light and goodness of a loving spirit.

 

[JayJayDee]

Since that poster quoted me, I will say this to your question of who the serious students are. They are the Bart Erhman's, Karen King's, Matthew Fox, and a plethora more of PhD level theologian's that have studied the Bible and other faiths for most of their lives. Your statement about them not being around when Jesus lived, if he did, is ludicrous and even childish. These people I mentioned are alive now and agree that Paulian dogma is NOT that of what Christ taught. Its incredibly different.

You missed my point entirely Jo.
The point was that "serious theological students" of today can be just as wrong as those of the first century who believed that they were God's people teaching the word of God correctly. Their teachings were exposed by Jesus. He said they weren't teaching God's word, but a corrupted interpretation of it, and yet those higher schools of learning and what they promoted, won out over the teachings of God's own son.
We put great store in the credentials of those who claim to be scholars, but scholars are humans too and can be just as misled as the Pharisees were.

 

[JoStories]

The only atithesis of Marcion I read is on earlychristianwritings. Gnostic he was. But his Bible consisted of The Gospel Of The Lord and 10 Epistles of Paul. So he must have agreed with him to include them in his Bible. But they are not like the Epistles in the Orthodox Bible. Also Marcion makes a very good point about the God of the Hebrews not being the same as the spiritual God of Jesus. And I agree with him. During meditation I sense nothing except the light and goodness of a loving spirit.

Marcion makes so many mistakes that to consider him correct in his interpretation is the antithesis of what Christ taught. First of all, Marcion thought Paul was : 1. Jesus' only apostle and of course, he was never an apostle and 2. That Paul never knew Jesus. Also, Marcion was not even born until 85 CE. Long after any of the people of Jesus would have been alive. Furthermore, Marcion concludes that there are 2 gods, a higher god and a lower ruler god. This is not only far from what the Bible teaches, it heretical to the early Christian church. You are free to believe whatever works for you but to imagine that Marcion had any input into Christianity is ludicrous on its face.

 

[JoStories]

You missed my point entirely Jo.
The point was that "serious theological students" of today can be just as wrong as those of the first century who believed that they were God's people teaching the word of God correctly. Their teachings were exposed by Jesus. He said they weren't teaching God's word, but a corrupted interpretation of it, and yet those higher schools of learning and what they promoted, won out over the teachings of God's own son.
We put great store in the credentials of those who claim to be scholars, but scholars are humans too and can be just as misled as the Pharisees were.

The people I mentioned are not students, they are some of the leading minds of theology today. Sure they could be wrong, but its doubtful as their opinions are based on science and on the study of artifacts that we have from that time frame. You can believe what you want, but to imagine that they are all wrong is just blindness to truth.

 

[LASTINGLIGHT]

Marcion makes so many mistakes that to consider him correct in his interpretation is the antithesis of what Christ taught. First of all, Marcion thought Paul was : 1. Jesus' only apostle and of course, he was never an apostle and 2. That Paul never knew Jesus. Also, Marcion was not even born until 85 CE. Long after any of the people of Jesus would have been alive. Furthermore, Marcion concludes that there are 2 gods, a higher god and a lower ruler god. This is not only far from what the Bible teaches, it heretical to the early Christian church. You are free to believe whatever works for you but to imagine that Marcion had any input into Christianity is ludicrous on its face.

I agree Marcion probably did not have any input into orthodox Christianity, but he was an early advocate of Gnosticism. His gospel did not contain Jesus Christ, but Isu Chrestos. The earliest verified Christian church is a Marcionite Church in Syria. It has the words Isu Chrestos carved over the door. Marcion was a religious dead end.

 

[LASTINGLIGHT]

The people I mentioned are not students, they are some of the leading minds of theology today. Sure they could be wrong, but its doubtful as their opinions are based on science and on the study of artifacts that we have from that time frame. You can believe what you want, but to imagine that they are all wrong is just blindness to truth.

Some people are unable to tell fact from fiction. To some, if the lie sounds better than the truth, then they believe the lie.