U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-19-2016, 12:51 PM
 
20,299 posts, read 15,654,940 times
Reputation: 7415

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aristotle's Child View Post
RESPONSE:

We now realize that neither Paul or any of the four evangelists were witnesses themselves. They wrote from stories they had heard about Jesus.

Excerpted from A Concise History of the Catholic Church
By Father Thomas Bokenkotter, SS

"The Gospels were not meant to be a historical or biographical account of Jesus. They were written to convert unbelievers to faith in Jesus as the Messiah of God, risen and living now in his church and coming again to judge all men. Their authors did not deliberately invent or falsify facts about Jesus, but they were not primarily concerned with historical accuracy. They readily included material drawn from the Christian communities' experience of the risen Jesus. Words, for instance, were put in the mouth of Jesus and stories were told about him which, though not historical in the strict sense, nevertheless, in the minds of the evangelists, fittingly expressed the real meaning and intent of Jesus as faith had come to perceive him. For this reason, scholars have come to make a distinction between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith."
No, we don't realize that. While neither Mark or Luke were eyewitnesses, Paul states that he was a witness to the risen Jesus (1 Cor. 15:8), and John, the writer of the Gospel of John makes a direct claim to being a witness of Jesus - John 21:20, 24; cf.19:35.

To claim that neither Paul or John were witnesses to Jesus you have to disregard their statements that they were eyewitnesses.

As for their historicity, even skeptical scholar Bart Ehrman recognizes that the Gospels must be recognized as historical sources. Although he personally thinks there is a lot of unhistorical material in the Gospels which could not have happened, he states that there is historical information in the Gospels. A couple of quick comments of Ehrman,
''However else the Gospels are used---for example, in communities of faith---they can and must be considered historical sources of information.''

''To dismiss the Gospels from the historical record is neither fair or scholarly.''

['Did Jesus Exist?', Ehrman, p.71, 73]
Many scholars today consider the Gospels to be Greco-Roman Bio's. Biographies written according to the standard of their time.

Mark Roberts, who received his Ph.D in New Testament from Harvard University and teaches at Fuller Theological Seminary, writes,
''Yet the Gospels present themselves as something other than expanded fictional parables. Luke is clearest in this regard, by beginning his Gospel with a prologue that intentionally echoes the prologues of other historians from his era. . . . The evangelists wrote reliable history because they cared about what had happened in the past. And why did they care about the past? Because their theology was anchored in past events.''

[Can We Trust the Gospels, pp. 119-20]
Noting that the Gospels differ from a modern biography, New Testament scholar Paul Barnett says,
''Each Gospel is biographical but not a biography, historical but not a history.''

[Is the New Testament Reliable? p.52]
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-19-2016, 01:01 PM
 
Location: Denver, CO
8,593 posts, read 5,120,460 times
Reputation: 3917
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aristotle's Child View Post
RESPONSE:

We now realize that neither Paul or any of the four evangelists were witnesses themselves. They wrote from stories they had heard about Jesus.

Excerpted from A Concise History of the Catholic Church
By Father Thomas Bokenkotter, SS

"The Gospels were not meant to be a historical or biographical account of Jesus. They were written to convert unbelievers to faith in Jesus as the Messiah of God, risen and living now in his church and coming again to judge all men. Their authors did not deliberately invent or falsify facts about Jesus, but they were not primarily concerned with historical accuracy. They readily included material drawn from the Christian communities' experience of the risen Jesus. Words, for instance, were put in the mouth of Jesus and stories were told about him which, though not historical in the strict sense, nevertheless, in the minds of the evangelists, fittingly expressed the real meaning and intent of Jesus as faith had come to perceive him. For this reason, scholars have come to make a distinction between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith."
The Bible is NOTHING but the Christ of faith. It is impossible to find the "historical" Jesus because there were no biblical writers that wrote without faith being the underlying structure. And there are no other sources with any details about Jesus.

At the same time it is quite remarkable that the stories about Jesus---coming from different sources over many decades---contain striking similarities in the overall picture while details are quite diverse. IMO, nothing but the resurrection story could have sparked such prevailing diverse oral traditions. The diversity itself has the ring of truth--because eyewitnesses and oral traditions handed down in separate groups, would have seen and remembered events and words differently.

Efforts to "prove" Jesus are by those who need proofs---frequently bibliolators because they are the ones that require "solid" evidence. They are the "Thomases" of the Christian world, so they idolize the Bible because it is something they "see."

But Christ is now and always has been a matter of faith, pure and simple. And, I, personally, have faith in the overall picture of the gospel writers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2016, 01:07 PM
 
Location: Denver, CO
8,593 posts, read 5,120,460 times
Reputation: 3917
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
No, we don't realize that. While neither Mark or Luke were eyewitnesses, Paul states that he was a witness to the risen Jesus (1 Cor. 15:8), and John, the writer of the Gospel of John makes a direct claim to being a witness of Jesus - John 21:20, 24; cf.19:35.

To claim that neither Paul or John were witnesses to Jesus you have to disregard their statements that they were eyewitnesses.

As for their historicity, even skeptical scholar Bart Ehrman recognizes that the Gospels must be recognized as historical sources. Although he personally thinks there is a lot of unhistorical material in the Gospels which could not have happened, he states that there is historical information in the Gospels. A couple of quick comments of Ehrman,
''However else the Gospels are used---for example, in communities of faith---they can and must be considered historical sources of information.''

''To dismiss the Gospels from the historical record is neither fair or scholarly.''

['Did Jesus Exist?', Ehrman, p.71, 73]
Many scholars today consider the Gospels to be Greco-Roman Bio's. Biographies written according to the standard of their time.

Mark Roberts, who received his Ph.D in New Testament from Harvard University and teaches at Fuller Theological Seminary, writes,
''Yet the Gospels present themselves as something other than expanded fictional parables. Luke is clearest in this regard, by beginning his Gospel with a prologue that intentionally echoes the prologues of other historians from his era. . . . The evangelists wrote reliable history because they cared about what had happened in the past. And why did they care about the past? Because their theology was anchored in past events.''

[Can We Trust the Gospels, pp. 119-20]
Noting that the Gospels differ from a modern biography, New Testament scholar Paul Barnett says,
''Each Gospel is biographical but not a biography, historical but not a history.''

[Is the New Testament Reliable? p.52]
I'm impressed. Your posts are improving. While I may not agree with the details as you do, the overall message is spot on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2016, 02:12 PM
 
Location: Oregon
802 posts, read 292,698 times
Reputation: 46
[quote=Mike555;43413759]No, we don't realize that. While neither Mark or Luke were eyewitnesses, Paul states that he was a witness to the risen Jesus (1 Cor. 15:8), and John, the writer of the Gospel of John makes a direct claim to being a witness of Jesus - John 21:20, 24; cf.19:35.

To claim that neither Paul or John were witnesses to Jesus you have to disregard their statements that they were eyewitnesses.

RESPONSE:

1. Paul had a vision of Jesus three years after Jesus' death. Paul didn't even become a follower of Jesus until those three years after Jesus death.

2. Keep in mind that the Gospel we now "attribute" to John was written
about 95-100 AD, And lets look at the passages you quoted to see what they really tell us.

Note: Nowhere are we told that John was the "beloved disciple." Given what is written, it appears that the beloved disciple was probably Lazarus.


John 21:20 20 Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; he was the one who had reclined next to Jesus at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?” Does this name John?

John 21:24 24 This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true. Does this name John?

John 19:35 (He who saw this has testified so that you also may believe. His testimony is true, and he knows[g] that he tells the truth.) Does this name John?

John 11:3 “Lord, behold, he whom You love is sick.

See also John 19:26 When Jesus saw his mother* and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son” 27 Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother.” And from that hour the disciple took her into his home. Did Jesus name John?

Now here's the problem with John 19:27. John lived in Capharum about a 3 days journey from Jerusalem. Lazaras lived in Bethany right near Jerusalem, So who could have taken Mary ino his home "from that hour"? Clearly not John,
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2016, 04:04 PM
 
20,299 posts, read 15,654,940 times
Reputation: 7415
[quote=Aristotle's Child;43414579]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
No, we don't realize that. While neither Mark or Luke were eyewitnesses, Paul states that he was a witness to the risen Jesus (1 Cor. 15:8), and John, the writer of the Gospel of John makes a direct claim to being a witness of Jesus - John 21:20, 24; cf.19:35.

To claim that neither Paul or John were witnesses to Jesus you have to disregard their statements that they were eyewitnesses.

RESPONSE:

1. Paul had a vision of Jesus three years after Jesus' death. Paul didn't even become a follower of Jesus until those three years after Jesus death.
Paul specifically states in 1 Corinthians 15:8 - ''and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.''

Paul includes himself among those previously mentioned to whom the risen Jesus appeared. The only difference between Jesus' appearance to Paul and His appearance to the others is that Jesus appeared to Paul some three years after His ascension into heaven, while His appearances to the others was before He ascended into heaven. Either way, it is an appearance of the risen Jesus because the appearance was after Jesus was resurrected. Paul therefore was a witness to the risen Jesus as he states.

Quote:
2. Keep in mind that the Gospel we now "attribute" to John was written
about 95-100 AD, And lets look at the passages you quoted to see what they really tell us.

Note: Nowhere are we told that John was the "beloved disciple." Given what is written, it appears that the beloved disciple was probably Lazarus.


John 21:20 20 Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; he was the one who had reclined next to Jesus at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?” Does this name John?

John 21:24 24 This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true. Does this name John?

John 19:35 (He who saw this has testified so that you also may believe. His testimony is true, and he knows[g] that he tells the truth.) Does this name John?

John 11:3 “Lord, behold, he whom You love is sick.

See also John 19:26 When Jesus saw his mother* and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son” 27 Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother.” And from that hour the disciple took her into his home. Did Jesus name John?
You are missing the point. Regardless of whether you believe that John wrote the Gospel of John, or that someone else wrote the Gospel, the point is that the author of that Gospel makes a direct claim to have been a witness to Jesus. In other words, the author of the Gospel of John is the disciple whom Jesus loved.

However, the overwhelming testimony of the early church from the second century onward is that John wrote the Gospel. One very strong piece of evidence comes from Irenaeus who was a pupil of Polycarp who himself had been a student of John. Irenaeus writes.
''John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.''

Against Heresies 3.1
Quote:
Now here's the problem with John 19:27. John lived in Capharum about a 3 days journey from Jerusalem. Lazaras lived in Bethany right near Jerusalem, So who could have taken Mary ino his home "from that hour"? Clearly not John,
You misunderstand the phrase, ''from that hour on.'' It simply refers to the fact that from that moment on, from the moment that Jesus appointed the disciple in question to take care of Mary, he did so. It does not mean that the disciple took Mary to his house at that very hour. Again, the early church recognized that John was the author of the Gospel of John.

But my main point is that the author of that Gospel, whoever you may think him to be, claimed to be an eyewitness to Jesus.

Last edited by Mike555; 03-19-2016 at 04:18 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2016, 04:34 PM
 
4,583 posts, read 2,270,137 times
Reputation: 339
[quote=Aristotle's Child;43414579]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
No, we don't realize that. While neither Mark or Luke were eyewitnesses, Paul states that he was a witness to the risen Jesus (1 Cor. 15:8), and John, the writer of the Gospel of John makes a direct claim to being a witness of Jesus - John 21:20, 24; cf.19:35.
To claim that neither Paul or John were witnesses to Jesus you have to disregard their statements that they were eyewitnesses.
RESPONSE:
1. Paul had a vision of Jesus three years after Jesus' death. Paul didn't even become a follower of Jesus until those three years after Jesus death.
2. Keep in mind that the Gospel we now "attribute" to John was written
about 95-100 AD, And lets look at the passages you quoted to see what they really tell us.
Note: Nowhere are we told that John was the "beloved disciple." Given what is written, it appears that the beloved disciple was probably Lazarus.
John 21:20 20 Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; he was the one who had reclined next to Jesus at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?” Does this name John?
John 21:24 24 This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true. Does this name John?
John 19:35 (He who saw this has testified so that you also may believe. His testimony is true, and he knows[g] that he tells the truth.) Does this name John?
John 11:3 “Lord, behold, he whom You love is sick.
See also John 19:26 When Jesus saw his mother* and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son” 27 Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother.” And from that hour the disciple took her into his home. Did Jesus name John?
Now here's the problem with John 19:27. John lived in Capharum about a 3 days journey from Jerusalem. Lazaras lived in Bethany right near Jerusalem, So who could have taken Mary ino his home "from that hour"? Clearly not John,
How could dead Lazarus take Mary anywhere ?
Please remember the resurrected Lazarus was then killed off - John 12:10
Just as Jesus' enemies conspired to do away with him - John 11:53
Was Lazarus one of the 12 apostles ?___
There is No record of Lazarus being at the Last Supper leaning on Jesus' bosom - John 13:23
The disciple Jesus loved was at the Last Supper. Lazarus was Not there.
At the Last Supper all 12 were in Jerusalem and Not miles away.
There is also No record of Lazarus being there at Jesus' execution.
John, being the writer of John, simply does Not mention himself by name.
If Lazarus was still alive there would be No reason that John would avoid mentioning Lazarus or using his name.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2016, 05:56 PM
 
Location: Oregon
802 posts, read 292,698 times
Reputation: 46
Default T

Lets look at what the historians say about the Apostles John’s authorship of “the Gospel of John.”
Guthrie admitted another of Jesus’ followers could be the writer. Candidates who’ve been proposed include Lazarus, Nicodemus, a totally unknown person, or (the favored option) a different 1st Century John known as “the elder,” who was mentioned by the apostle John’s student, Bishop Papias (born circa A.D. 70) according to later historians.
Bible puzzler: Did John write the Gospel of John?


Several hypotheses have attempted to explain why so much of Jesus’ life not portrayed in the Synoptics is present in John and vice versa. One hypothesis claims that John recorded many of the events that occurred before the arrest of John the Baptist, while the Synoptics all have Jesus’ ministry beginning only after the arrest. Another holds that John was written last, by someone who knew about the other three Gospels, but who wished to write a spiritual gospel instead of an historical one. This would mean that the person who wrote the Gospel of John would not have been a contemporary of Jesus, and therefore would not have been an eyewitness as the author claims. There is also the possibility that the author of John did not know of Mark and hence did not have the same information.
Gospel of John Commentary: Who Wrote the Gospel of John and How Historical Is It? - Biblical Archaeology Society

Matthew, Mark and Luke are known as the Synoptic Gospels because they see Jesus’ ministry together. That is what syn-optic means in Greek: “seen together.” John, however, goes his own way. Even the chronological framework of Jesus’ ministry is different in John. Jesus’ ministry lasts longer, and Jesus visits Jerusalem more often. In John,
John—Historian or Theologian? | The BAS Library

Note: And of course, John, unlike the other apostles, has Jesus crucified the day before the Passover. Would an eyewitness make that mistake – no Passover meal and no eucharist.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2016, 06:23 PM
 
20,299 posts, read 15,654,940 times
Reputation: 7415
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aristotle's Child View Post
Lets look at what the historians say about the Apostles John’s authorship of “the Gospel of John.”
Guthrie admitted another of Jesus’ followers could be the writer. Candidates who’ve been proposed include Lazarus, Nicodemus, a totally unknown person, or (the favored option) a different 1st Century John known as “the elder,” who was mentioned by the apostle John’s student, Bishop Papias (born circa A.D. 70) according to later historians.
Bible puzzler: Did John write the Gospel of John?


Several hypotheses have attempted to explain why so much of Jesus’ life not portrayed in the Synoptics is present in John and vice versa. One hypothesis claims that John recorded many of the events that occurred before the arrest of John the Baptist, while the Synoptics all have Jesus’ ministry beginning only after the arrest. Another holds that John was written last, by someone who knew about the other three Gospels, but who wished to write a spiritual gospel instead of an historical one. This would mean that the person who wrote the Gospel of John would not have been a contemporary of Jesus, and therefore would not have been an eyewitness as the author claims. There is also the possibility that the author of John did not know of Mark and hence did not have the same information.
Gospel of John Commentary: Who Wrote the Gospel of John and How Historical Is It? - Biblical Archaeology Society

Matthew, Mark and Luke are known as the Synoptic Gospels because they see Jesus’ ministry together. That is what syn-optic means in Greek: “seen together.” John, however, goes his own way. Even the chronological framework of Jesus’ ministry is different in John. Jesus’ ministry lasts longer, and Jesus visits Jerusalem more often. In John,
John—Historian or Theologian? | The BAS Library

Note: And of course, John, unlike the other apostles, has Jesus crucified the day before the Passover. Would an eyewitness make that mistake – no Passover meal and no eucharist.
John and the Synoptics agree that Jesus was crucified on the same day. The apparent discrepancy is just that. Apparent. I did a thread on that subject a few years back.

The four Gospels agree that Jesus Christ was crucified on Passover

I think that someone who was a student of someone who had personally known John was in a better position then modern scholars and historians to know if John wrote the Gospel.

But aside from that, whether or not you agree that the author of the Gospel of John was John, to deny that the author of the Gospel of John was a witness to Jesus when he said that he was, is to call him a liar.

Since there were already three Gospels in existence that contained pretty much the same information, it is not likely that John felt the need to give the same information yet again. Instead, he gave the details that he chose to provide about Jesus' ministry. Each of the four Gospel writers emphasized what he wished to emphasize and wrote his Gospel account accordingly.

John also chose to provide details which spanned the approximately three year ministry of Jesus and so yes, John records Jesus going up to Jerusalem for three Passovers.

Also, in the ancient world, laying out the details in strict chronological order was not important to the writers. The Gospel writers often used a thematic rather than a chronological arrangement of the events.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2016, 06:38 PM
 
Location: Oregon
802 posts, read 292,698 times
Reputation: 46
Default Matt 4:4 argues as follows.

Matthew 4:4 posted:
Quote:
How could dead Lazarus take Mary anywhere ?
Please remember the resurrected Lazarus was then killed off - John 12:10
RESPONSE: Where does it say Lazarus was actually killed?

John 12:10 So the chief priests planned to put Lazarus to death as well, 11since it was on account of him that many of the Jews were deserting and were believing in Jesus.

Quote:
Just as Jesus' enemies conspired to do away with him - John 11:53
RESPONSE: 11:50-53 “… being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus was about to die for the nation, 52 and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the dispersed children of God. 53 So from that day on they planned to put him to death.”

That was Jesus. Not Lazaarus.

Quote:
Was Lazarus one of the 12 apostles ?___
There is No record of Lazarus being at the Last Supper leaning on Jesus' bosom - John 13:23
The disciple Jesus loved was at the Last Supper. Lazarus was Not there.
RESPONSE: We know that the Apostles were at the Last Supper but obviously others were too. Who do you think did the cooking and waited tables? Do you think that any of the Apostles brought their wives and families as was usually the case in a Passover meal.

Please quote the scripture that say that Lazarus was NOT there. And just out of curiosity, please cite the scripture that says it was John that Jesus loved.

[quote] At the Last Supper all 12 were in Jerusalem and Not miles away.
There is also No record of Lazarus being there at Jesus' execution. [/quote.}

RESPONSE: Sure there is. Jesus gave his mother to the care of a “beloved disciple” who brought her to his home (in nearby Bethany)" within the hour". The Apostle John lived three days away in Capharnum so obviously he was not the "beloved" disciple involved.

Quote:
John, being the writer of John, simply does not mention himself by name.
If Lazarus was still alive there would be No reason that John would avoid mentioning Lazarus or using his name.
RESPONSE: Obviously, if John wasn't the writer of the Gospel of John, he couldn't very well have mentioned Lazarus, could he?

And if next you are going to to tell us that some early Church Fathers claimed that the Gospel of John was written by the Apostle John, please tell us their names, the date they wrote, and where they got their information.

Always interesting to read your views!

Last edited by Aristotle's Child; 03-19-2016 at 06:44 PM.. Reason: typo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2016, 07:01 PM
 
Location: Oregon
802 posts, read 292,698 times
Reputation: 46
[quote=Mike555;43416768]John and the Synoptics agree that Jesus was crucified on the same day. The apparent discrepancy is just that. Apparent. I did a thread on that subject a few years back.

RESPONSE:

Not according to the writer of John's gospel.

Now it was the day of Preparation for the Passover; and it was about noon. [Pilate] said to the Jews, “Here is your King!” (John 19:14)

Now since it was preparation day, in order that the bodies might not remain on the cross on the sabbath, for the sabbath day of that week was a solemn one, the Jews asked Pilate that their legs be broken and they be taken down.r (John 19:31)

Perhaps, you'll want to correct your thread if it says otherwise.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top