The Bible - Why Trust It

[nPeace]

It is interesting that in trying to harmonize the gospels, Christian, in essence, write their own gospel, filled in with massive speculation.

What do you mean? Who's changing the text, and how?

 

[Wandering Monk]

What do you mean? Who's changing the text, and how?

Have you ever read apologists trying to reconcile differences in the gospels? They create quite elaborate and fanciful explanations for the difference.

 

[nPeace]

Have you ever read apologists trying to reconcile differences in the gospels? They create quite elaborate and fanciful explanations for the difference.

You'll have to give me an example, because I have seen the opposite. I see skeptics creating the differences that are not there, and usually because they, it seems like, daily are looking to find something to fault.
The apologists are only showing that they need to reasonably consider that they are looking at the texts with a one sided mindset.

 

[firedragon]

I suppose you concluded that someone else who is writing this book is telling us that this disciple loved by Jesus has written, based on scriptures, such as...(John 13:23-25) 23 One of the disciples, the one whom Jesus loved, was reclining close to Jesus. 24 Therefore, Simon Peter nodded to this one and said to him: “Tell us whom he is talking about.” 25 So the latter leaned back on the chest of Jesus and said to him: “Lord, who is it?”
This text would appear as though it is being recounted from a third party. (Also, compare John 19:26 ; John 20:2 ; John 21:7, 20)
If that is how you are seeing it, who would this third party be? Would that person not be speaking from an eyewitness perspective?
In any case, the writer of the Gospel was an eyewitness.

It is true the disciple did not identify himself as John, but there is no reason to think it is not, just because the writer uses a creative style of narrating.
I can see myself writing like that, because it's creative, and unique, and I am always looking to to include both, when I write.
Also, it shows modesty, which John would obviously have at this time.

Additionally, when the writer speaks of John the Baptizer, unlike the other Gospel writers he calls the Baptizer only “John”. This would be more natural for one of the same name to do, since no one would misunderstand about whom he was speaking. Others would have to use a surname or title or other descriptive terms to distinguish whom they meant.
If the writer was not John, he would need to differentiate between John, the disciple, and John the baptizer, and would also have identified the disciple Jesus loved.
I think that's reasonable.

The writer DOES NOT CLAIM TO BE AN EYEWITNESS. The writer claims that another person is. I even cut and pasted the verse.

The information you responded to did that...or perhaps I don't understand your question.

No they absolutely did not. You didnt understand the question.

On what basis are you saying that the Johannine literature has one author? What criteria? Whats the method of criticism you have used to make that claim?

If you dont understand what criticism is take a book on bible studies and im sure you will understand.

Was John a fisherman all his life? Not that I know of.
I'm sure he learned to fish, just as we learn anything we put our mind to learning.
There is no evidence of anyone else, being the writer of the Gospel of John, so any other suggestion must be based on some evidence, at least.

Your assumptions are out of the roof.

I am not talking about John. I am talking about the beloved disciple, who you claim "wrote" the gospel of John. And your statement "there is no evidence of anyone else being the writer" doesnt make any stand on its own. How could "no evidence to someone else" mean " the disciple beloved, who is assumed to be John, who is assumed to be the writer of the Gospel, "who claims another person testifies and gives testimony and his testimony is true" has written this book.

Thats one of the most absurd assumptions i have come across.

21:24 This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true. - Gospel of John

Isn't John mentioned in other Gospels?
(Matthew 4:21 ; 10:2 ; 17:1)
(Mark 1:19, 29 ; 3:16, 17 ; 5:37 ; 9:2 ; 10:35, 41 ; 13:3 ; 14:33)
(Luke 5:10 ; 6:14 ; 8:51 ; 9:28, 49-54 ; 22:8)

I don't understand the other question.

You spoke of the beloved disciple.

1. In the Gospel of John, he was there at the tomb before peter.
2. In Luke, he wasnt.

You dont seem to understand the question. Its simple really.

Cheers.

 

[nPeace]

The writer DOES NOT CLAIM TO BE AN EYEWITNESS. The writer claims that another person is. I even cut and pasted the verse.

I understand that is what you believe.
The verse does not say what you believe.
Nowhere does it say that the writer is alluding to someone else.

How is the writer not an eyewitness, when the writer is reporting events from a first person perspective?
Why do you conclude that John is not speaking of himself from a third person perspective?
Can that not be the case? If no, why not?

No they absolutely did not. You didnt understand the question.

On what basis are you saying that the Johannine literature has one author? What criteria? Whats the method of criticism you have used to make that claim?

If you dont understand what criticism is take a book on bible studies and im sure you will understand.

I understand what criticism is.
Only, I am not using my methods of criticism. I am presenting you with scholarly criticism.
What I don't understand, is what more you want. So perhaps I don't understand your question because you are not asking what you really want.
So maybe explain why what I gave you are not methods of criticism.

Your assumptions are out of the roof.

I am not talking about John. I am talking about the beloved disciple, who you claim "wrote" the gospel of John. And your statement "there is no evidence of anyone else being the writer" doesnt make any stand on its own. How could "no evidence to someone else" mean " the disciple beloved, who is assumed to be John, who is assumed to be the writer of the Gospel, "who claims another person testifies and gives testimony and his testimony is true" has written this book.

Thats one of the most absurd assumptions i have come across.

21:24 This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true. - Gospel of John

You spoke of the beloved disciple.

1. In the Gospel of John, he was there at the tomb before peter.
2. In Luke, he wasnt.

You dont seem to understand the question. Its simple really.

Cheers.

There ya go.
John is relating the account. As an eyewitness, he includes himself. That's how I see it, because you would notice that the other Gospel writers did not include that event.
So according to Matthew's and Mark's account, neither of them went to the tomb. Why? Because they did not record it.
No. They did not include that event, because they were not there, and the event was apparently not, either related to Mark, or not that important to note.
However, it seems more likely, it was not given to Mark from the only two witnesses - Peter and John.
Perhaps the others did not believe the women, even after Peter and John left.
They probably were waiting for them to return to say, the women were just delusional.

 

[firedragon]

I understand what criticism is.
Only, I am not using my methods of criticism. I am presenting you with scholarly criticism.

No. You have not presented me with any kind of scholarly criticism.

You saying you "understand what criticism is and you are not using your methods of criticism" shows that you have no clue of any criticism.

 

[firedragon]

John is relating the account. As an eyewitness, he includes himself. That's how I see it, because you would notice that the other Gospel writers did not include that event.
So according to Matthew's and Mark's account, neither of them went to the tomb. Why? Because they did not record it.
No. They did not include that event, because they were not there, and the event was apparently not, either related to Mark, or not that important to note.

So Mark, Luke and Matthew were not eye witnesses, only Johns Gospel was. Nice.

 

[Nimos]

Here you go...

Thanks

People raised in the same household are at war with each other. That's where it starts, isn't it? Why is that?

Not sure what you mean with people raised in the same household are at war, can you elaborate on that?

Have you ever heard the term "make up with", or "reconcile differences", or "learn to get along" etc.? Have you ever seen it happen? I have seen it many times.
The question is, why not learn what love is, and how to show it, instead of thinking one knows everything one needs to know, from within?

Because it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with having to learn anything, it might simply come down to it not being meant to be. The idea of there being anything wrong with that is wrong as I seen it. The only issue with it, comes when their are children involved as they are often suffering due to parents separating. In such case trying to make things work is definitely a good idea.

But besides that, nothing ought to be wrong in simply not getting along with each other or having out grown each other whatever ones reason might be.

It's in all of Paul's writings, and that's because only accidents happen suddenly - BRAM!.

Paul is not a Gospel writer, I was referring to the other gospels not mentioning it. Which I find strange, as one would assume that it would be quite important whether Jesus thought the law should be removed or not.

When Jehovah chose the nation of Israel as his people, he was their king, and ruler, having authority to set laws, and enforce them, and punish wrongdoers.
Unlike human rulers that are unable to make up their mind whether to execute murderers, or not, Jehovah is not undecided about who deserves death. Nor does Jehovah have a failed justice system.

What Im saying is that those and what God consider to be wrongdoings are in a lot of cases immoral and wrong. It doesn't matter if he is supreme ruler and decide all the laws. The difference is that you see them as being righteous and good, whereas I do not.

I don't see a difference between the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the lamb of God.
Jesus is the exact representation of his father (Hebrews 1:3). He loves righteousness and hates lawlessness (Hebrews 1:9) - like his father.
The willing sacrifice of Jesus, is what allows for mercy - allowing us to live... according to the Bible.

So, I don't see things the way you imagine it is.

That is why Jesus is no better than God when it comes to making moral decisions. Its not a matter of who they are, but what they are capable of. Claiming that they are supreme being of pure good, one would expect them to be able to do a lot better in this department than they are.
Besides that, what exactly was sacrificed? Jesus rose from the dead and went straight to God, if its just for a few days, when one live for eternity. He didn't loose anything and knew he wouldn't, that is not to sacrifice anything. If one believe in the trinity, the sacrifice makes even less sense. I really don't see why people are so impressed with this, it really isn't at all

Please read the article.

So this is basically just traditions and rituals, which varies people believe to be true and that can affect their world. From a historical point of view, I can see it being interesting in how it have affected our societies etc. From a personal point of view, I would put it in the same category as that of believing in ghosts, astrology, healing stones etc. If people believe in those things that is fine with me, but without evidence for evil spirits and how stars could affect our lives and so on, I really don't care a lot for it. People believe in all sorts of things, if we are to take all of it serious, if they can't supply evidence, then we couldn't do much else than trying to sort through non sense.

Okay, so besides the historical method, what else do you suggest?

Im not saying that there is anything especially wrong with using the historical method. Its about how one interpret what is found through it, this is what people discuss, trying to find out what best explains something.

According to me? It's not according to me Nimos. They are scholars, that I referred to.

But you told me, when I mentioned scholars that I was wrong, yet you mention them and then its correct? that's a bit confusing, but nevermind.

For example... I have free will to jump off a cliff, does that mean I can fly? For a few seconds, I might fly, but I will soon hit THUD.

No, but if you jump off a cliff unto some rock with the intend of killing yourself, but every time you do, land softly and unharmed. You would know that something is preventing you from killing yourself in such way. Therefore you are not able to execute your free will.

So, If someone has the ability to look ahead, and see events taking place, before they actually occur, how does that in any way change what someone does? It doesn't.
The person's decisions are not written, like in a script. They are simply living their life by their own choices.

Its about what is to come to pass, and for that to happen certain events need to play out in a certain way. For instance if it is prophecies that Jesus will die on the cross, clearly he is not going to die from getting clubbed in the head. So anyone with the intention of doing so, will not be able to, so it will interfere with their free will.
If it have already been decided that no one, will ever get the idea of clubbing Jesus, then that is interfering with free will as well.

No.
First, you decide by your own standards... again, that it is impossible. It is not, and it is unreasonable to ignore the fact that it isn't... especially after being shown the most basic explanation as to why, and how it is possible.

Second, scholars disagree with your friend, and not only scholars, but all the evidence as well.
This is where bias gets in the way of going by the evidence.
It's sadly very prevalent, when one want to ignore truth.

I don't think we will get any closer to settling this, I don't know how you are reaching your conclusion, that so many scholars and that all evidence points to John being an eyewitness, when practically anywhere you look, it is said that he weren't or it is highly unlikely.

 

[Wandering Monk]

You'll have to give me an example, because I have seen the opposite. I see skeptics creating the differences that are not there, and usually because they, it seems like, daily are looking to find something to fault.
The apologists are only showing that they need to reasonably consider that they are looking at the texts with a one sided mindset.

When you quoted me in your post 861 you asked who was changing the text. My post you were responding to said NOTHING about changing the text, It was about Christian apologists creating their own narrative in attempting to reconcile Gospel accounts.

Here is an example of differences in Gospels accounts:

Matthew has Joseph and Mary fleeing to Egypt after Jesus' birth.

Luke says that after Mary's period of purification, required by the Law, Joseph and Mary returned to Nazareth. No mention of the flight to Egypt.​

Your response will inevitably demonstrate what I was talking about: you will attempt to reconcile these accounts by creating your own narrative, adding to the Gospels with your own imaginings.

 

[nPeace]

No. You have not presented me with any kind of scholarly criticism.

You saying you "understand what criticism is and you are not using your methods of criticism" shows that you have no clue of any criticism.

I did present you with much scholarly criticism.
That fact that you can't point out why they are not, demonstrates that you either ignored them, you can't dispute them, or you just don't want to admit that its scholarly criticism.

So Mark, Luke and Matthew were not eye witnesses, only Johns Gospel was. Nice.

From whence cometh this thou conclusion?
On what basis have you reached this conclusion?
Both Matthew and John were eyewitness.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I did present you with much scholarly criticism.
That fact that you can't point out why they are not, demonstrates that you either ignored them, you can't dispute them, or you just don't want to admit that its scholarly criticism.


From whence cometh this thou conclusion?
On what basis have you reached this conclusion?
Both Matthew and John were eyewitness.

Most modern scholars do not think that any of the Gospels were eyewitness accounts. They were all anonymous and the names were attached to them after the fact.

 

[firedragon]

I did present you with much scholarly criticism.
That fact that you can't point out why they are not, demonstrates that you either ignored them, you can't dispute them, or you just don't want to admit that its scholarly criticism.


From whence cometh this thou conclusion?
On what basis have you reached this conclusion?
Both Matthew and John were eyewitness.

Brother. You have not quoted any kind of scholarly criticism. What kind of criticism have you used here? Brother. Just google a little and you will understand what I'm speaking about. Please do a little bit of asking from someone or do a research. Or we can leave it at that. No problem.

And about john vs the other gospels it was you who without knowing made it clear that john is eyewitness testimony but the others aren't. John had the disciple at the tomb before peter, the others dont. So only one can be eyewitness testimony. Both cant be right.

 

[nPeace]

When you quoted me in your post 861 you asked who was changing the text. My post you were responding to said NOTHING about changing the text, It was about Christian apologists creating their own narrative in attempting to reconcile Gospel accounts.

...and I said, "I see skeptics creating the differences that are not there, and usually because they, it seems like, daily are looking to find something to fault."

Here is an example of differences in Gospels accounts:

Matthew has Joseph and Mary fleeing to Egypt after Jesus' birth.

Luke says that after Mary's period of purification, required by the Law, Joseph and Mary returned to Nazareth. No mention of the flight to Egypt.​

Your response will inevitably demonstrate what I was talking about: you will attempt to reconcile these accounts by creating your own narrative, adding to the Gospels with your own imaginings.

Huh?
Matthew is the only one who recorded the events that led to the flight to Egypt. So?
So two of your neighbors saw a man steal someone's bike. One neighbor says he came out of the bushes with a tool in his hand. The other is silent about that.
So they didn't witness the event because they didn't give the same details... of every event... in exactly the same way?
Aw come on.

I'll give you something even better.
If this doesn't put that argument to rest, nothing will.

Gospel of John - Wikipedia
Historical reliability
The teachings of Jesus found in the synoptic gospels are very different from those recorded in John, and since the 19th century scholars have almost unanimously accepted that these Johannine discourses are less likely than the synoptic parables to be historical, and were likely written for theological purposes. By the same token, scholars usually agree that John is not entirely without historical value: certain sayings in John are as old or older than their synoptic counterparts, his representation of the topography around Jerusalem is often superior to that of the synoptics, his testimony that Jesus was executed before, rather than on, Passover, might well be more accurate, and his presentation of Jesus in the garden and the prior meeting held by the Jewish authorities are possibly more historically plausible than their synoptic parallels.

Just focus on the text in blue.
Notice (please take careful note of this) that the majority of scholars came to these conclusions.
Did the Gospel of John say that Jesus was executed before, rather than on, Passover night, and would that be accurate?

First of all, it is important to note that all the other Gospels report that Jesus celebrated the Passover meal with his disciples the night before his death. Did John disagree?

When does a Jewish day begin?
A Jewish-calendar day does not begin at midnight, but at either sunset or when three medium-sized stars should be visible, depending on the religious circumstance.

Sunset marks the start of the 12 night hours, whereas sunrise marks the start of the 12 day hours. This means that night hours may be longer or shorter than day hours, depending on the season.

Day and hours
The Jewish day is of no fixed length. Based on the classic rabbinic interpretation of Genesis 1:5 ("There was evening and there was morning, one day"), a day in the rabbinic Hebrew calendar runs from sunset (the start of "the evening") to the next sunset. The same definition appears in the Bible in Leviticus 23:32, where the holiday of Yom Kippur is defined as lasting "from evening to evening". Halachically, a day ends and a new one starts when three stars are visible in the sky. The time between true sunset and the time when the three stars are visible (known as 'tzait ha'kochavim') is known as 'bein hashmashot', and there are differences of opinion as to which day it falls into for some uses. This may be relevant, for example, in determining the date of birth of a child born during that gap.

Over time, the Festival of Unleavened Bread commonly became known as “Passover” and is usually considered as starting at sundown between Nissan 14 and Nissan 15.

According to this information, Nisan 14 began, at sunset, and according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Jesus celebrated it then, before his arrest in the garden. After which he was executed when? The same day, Nisan 14. The next day is Sabbath, and it is a great one.

John does not disagree with this.
So where does the difference lie? It lies in the assumptions, mistakes and misunderstanding of the "experts".

First mistake...
Passover commences on the 15th of the Hebrew month of Nisan and lasts for either seven days (in Israel and for Reform Jews and other progressive Jews around the world who adhere to the biblical commandment) or eight days for Orthodox, Hasidic, and most Conservative Jews (in the diaspora).

Not according to the Bible, and early Jewish custom, as was mentioned previously.
(Leviticus 23:4-7) 4 “‘These are the seasonal festivals of Jehovah, holy conventions that you should proclaim at the times appointed for them: 5 In the first month, on the 14th day of the month, at twilight is the Passover to Jehovah. 6 “‘On the 15th day of this month is the Festival of Unleavened Bread to Jehovah. Seven days you should eat unleavened bread. 7 On the first day, you will observe a holy convention. You should not do any hard work.

Second mistake, misunderstanding, and assumption...
Those scholars assume - they misunderstood the passages - they make the mistake of thinking that John is talking about Preparation before the Passover.
That changes the truth, and creates a difference that doesn't exist.

John 19:14, 31 speaks of Preparation of the Sabbath, not Passover.
It is Preparation of the Sabbath that takes place on the Passover day.
The Jews understood this.

So tell e, why should I listen to these scholars, or allow them to dictate what I should believe?
They are inadequate, and I think they are driven by their own biases, and intent on finding fault... imo.

This is only one of hundreds of examples, where scholars have made these erroneous claims.
The Gospels are reliable and accurate accounts, and I think skeptics should get over it, already.

 

[nPeace]

Most modern scholars do not think that any of the Gospels were eyewitness accounts. They were all anonymous and the names were attached to them after the fact.

Most modern scholars are not God, or truth meters.
So what does that have to do with the price of oil... or me.

Johannine literature - Wikipedia
Johannine literature refers to the collection of New Testament works that are traditionally attributed to John the Apostle or to Johannine Christian community. Johannine literature is traditionally considered to include the following works:

Of these five books, the only one that explicitly identifies its author as a "John" is Revelation. Modern scholarship generally rejects the idea that this work is written by the same author as the other four documents. The gospel identifies its author as the Beloved Disciple. Since the end of the first century, the Beloved Disciple has been commonly identified with John the Evangelist. Scholars have debated the authorship of Johannine literature (the Gospel of John, Epistles of John, and the Book of Revelation) since at least the third century, but especially since the Enlightenment. The authorship by John the Apostle is rejected by many modern scholars.

Gospel of John - Wikipedia
Christian tradition identifies this disciple as the apostle John, but while this idea still has supporters, for a variety of reasons the majority of modern scholars have abandoned it or hold it only tenuously.

So what?

 

[nPeace]

Brother. You have not quoted any kind of scholarly criticism. What kind of criticism have you used here? Brother. Just google a little and you will understand what I'm speaking about. Please do a little bit of asking from someone or do a research. Or we can leave it at that. No problem.

And about john vs the other gospels it was you who without knowing made it clear that john is eyewitness testimony but the others aren't. John had the disciple at the tomb before peter, the others dont. So only one can be eyewitness testimony. Both cant be right.

I am using a scholarly work, where the information I gave you, comes from. I don't need google for that.
We know John is the writer, due to facts, not beliefs.
I gave you those facts. If you prefer the beliefs, that's fine by me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Most modern scholars are not God, or truth meters.
So what does that have to do with the price of oil... or me.

Johannine literature - Wikipedia
Johannine literature refers to the collection of New Testament works that are traditionally attributed to John the Apostle or to Johannine Christian community. Johannine literature is traditionally considered to include the following works:

Of these five books, the only one that explicitly identifies its author as a "John" is Revelation. Modern scholarship generally rejects the idea that this work is written by the same author as the other four documents. The gospel identifies its author as the Beloved Disciple. Since the end of the first century, the Beloved Disciple has been commonly identified with John the Evangelist. Scholars have debated the authorship of Johannine literature (the Gospel of John, Epistles of John, and the Book of Revelation) since at least the third century, but especially since the Enlightenment. The authorship by John the Apostle is rejected by many modern scholars.

Gospel of John - Wikipedia
Christian tradition identifies this disciple as the apostle John, but while this idea still has supporters, for a variety of reasons the majority of modern scholars have abandoned it or hold it only tenuously.

So what?

The point is, as shown by the source that you used, is that John is not an eyewitness account.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am using a scholarly work, where the information I gave you, comes from. I don't need google for that.
We know John is the writer, due to facts, not beliefs.
I gave you those facts. If you prefer the beliefs, that's fine by me.

What facts? I think that the facts were what convinced modern scholars that claiming John was the author is a mere belief.

 

[Wandering Monk]

..
Matthew is the only one who recorded the events that led to the flight to Egypt. So?
So two of your neighbors saw a man steal someone's bike. One neighbor says he came out of the bushes with a tool in his hand. The other is silent about that.
So they didn't witness the event because they didn't give the same details... of every event... in exactly the same way?

So apply your analogy to this particular situation. Matthew says they fled to Egypt, another gospel says they returned to Nazareth. Two supposed witnesses with different stories. Which one is correct?

Your answer: they both are. It's just a matter of perspective?

So spell it out clearly. Are you saying that both account are true? Give us you interpretation of these events.

 

[Audie]

Have you ever read apologists trying to reconcile differences in the gospels? They create quite elaborate and fanciful explanations for the difference.

So that is how the creos learned how to fit the ark
into reality

 

[Audie]

You'll have to give me an example, because I have seen the opposite. I see skeptics creating the differences that are not there, and usually because they, it seems like, daily are looking to find something to fault.
The apologists are only showing that they need to reasonably consider that they are looking at the texts with a one sided mindset.

You may be best keeping your opinions of motive to just
your own.
it is more than a little clear you do not understand what it
is to be a skeptic.
Your own bible says to test all things, does it not?

An atheist such as i can look at the bible, and see, well, this
is a good story with a moral message, here is good advice,
this is just weird, this is boring, this disagrees with that.

AND, we look at outside sources to confirm, or show error.
Is there really Egypt? Yes. Is Pi really 3.0? uh, no.

IF the Bible somehow consistently made sense and was
believable, I would be a Christian. Same as I would believe
there are palm trees in Alaska, if I found that they really
are there.

Reading the bible and thinking about it, same as with the BoM
was what convinced me it is not what people claim it is.

It is really uncool to accuse others of your own fault. You go
in thinking it is all true and perfect, and look for "proof" to
satisfy yourself. (that is intellectual dishonesty, btw)

A skeptic is not a scoffer, who just ignorantly laughs at
what they dont know (see creationists scoffing at science).

A skeptic is one who really does as the bible suggests, test
all things.