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.
Jesus was not the only begotten son. David was begotten as well. It is the servant of God who is begotten. Those that declare the decrees of the Lord, the word of the Lord.
Again, Jesus is the Son of God in a unique sense. In a way which can be said of no other. The word translated as 'only begotten' in the King James version is monogenés in the Greek and refers to one of a kind; one of a class. Jesus is the Son of God in a way which is not true of anyone else. Not of David, not of Israel, not of the angels, and not of the believer. The Gospel of John emphasizes the deity of Jesus, and John's description of Jesus as the monogenés - the unique Son of God is related to His deity. The title 'Son of God' as it applies to Jesus refers to the unique relationship between the First and Second Persons of the Trinity.
Again, Jesus is the Son of God in a unique sense. In a way which can be said of no other. The word translated as 'only begotten' in the King James version is monogenés in the Greek and refers to one of a kind; one of a class. Jesus is the Son of God in a way which is not true of anyone else. Not of David, not of Israel, not of the angels, and not of the believer. The Gospel of John emphasizes the deity of Jesus, and John's description of Jesus as the monogenés - the unique Son of God is related to His deity. The title 'Son of God' as it applies to Jesus refers to the unique relationship between the First and Second Persons of the Trinity.
Well that is your belief but scripture shows otherwise and mainstream Christianity refuses to see it's error. I have shown by a number of verses that Jesus was not the only son of God and son of man but you refuse to acknowledge them.
As it is written; "I said you are gods, all of you sons of the most High."
Again proving more sons. Now you can write it off with misinterpretation to suite your belief but scripture cannot be made void by ignoring it.
The gospels were not written by 'eye-witnesses'. The gospel authors are anonymous. The names Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were assigned to the gospels to help lend them an air of authenticity. There is good evidence that these gospels were not even written until the 2nd century. Also, all four gospels were written in Greek, a language neither your 'Jesus' nor his followers spoke.
Luke was not a follower of Jesus, he was a follower of Paul. Because some spurious stories about your man-god were circulating, Luke interviewed people who claimed to have known your man-god. So the Gospel of Luke is nothing more than second hand stories from people who claimed to have know this Jesus. Luke even admits he is going by earlier stories. He doesn't even say where he is getting the stories, but he is taking it from others. That demonstrates right there that he is not an eyewitness.
Matthew makes no direct claim in his gospel to being an eyewitness and heavily plagiarised Mark...which an "eye-witness" wouldn't need to do.
Mark wrote down what Peter had told him about who Jesus was, what he did, where he went and what happened. Mark's gospel is therefore Peters account, written down by Mark. This demonstrates that Mark was getting his information second hand from someone who claimed to be a disciple and didn't even write things down until after his supposed source was deceased. So Mark depended on Peter for his information, and therefore was not an eyewitness. Hearsay at best.. with loads of theological bias and motivation thrown in.
The Gospel of John was written c100-110 CE. Far to long after the events to have been written by an eye-witness.
We currently have no writing by anybody who actually claims to have known the character of JC in the flesh. The writings are at most claimed to be second hand, and the tradition is late
Jesus was not the only begotten son. David was begotten as well. It is the servant of God who is begotten. Those that declare the decrees of the Lord, the word of the Lord.
John 3:16-18 - "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 17 "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. 18 "He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
The gospels were not written by 'eye-witnesses'. The gospel authors are anonymous. The names Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were assigned to the gospels to help lend them an air of authenticity. There is good evidence that these gospels were not even written until the 2nd century. Also, all four gospels were written in Greek, a language neither your 'Jesus' nor his followers spoke.
Luke was not a follower of Jesus, he was a follower of Paul. Because some spurious stories about your man-god were circulating, Luke interviewed people who claimed to have known your man-god. So the Gospel of Luke is nothing more than second hand stories from people who claimed to have know this Jesus. Luke even admits he is going by earlier stories. He doesn't even say where he is getting the stories, but he is taking it from others. That demonstrates right there that he is not an eyewitness.
Matthew makes no direct claim in his gospel to being an eyewitness and heavily plagiarised Mark...which an "eye-witness" wouldn't need to do.
Mark wrote down what Peter had told him about who Jesus was, what he did, where he went and what happened. Mark's gospel is therefore Peters account, written down by Mark. This demonstrates that Mark was getting his information second hand from someone who claimed to be a disciple and didn't even write things down until after his supposed source was deceased. So Mark depended on Peter for his information, and therefore was not an eyewitness. Hearsay at best.. with loads of theological bias and motivation thrown in.
The Gospel of John was written c100-110 CE. Far to long after the events to have been written by an eye-witness.
We currently have no writing by anybody who actually claims to have known the character of JC in the flesh. The writings are at most claimed to be second hand, and the tradition is late
Actually, with regard to the Gospel of John, John 21:24 which was written by someone other than the author of the rest of that Gospel, states that the disciple whom Jesus loved is the author of the Gospel. And so, yes, the Gospel of John was written by an eyewitness of Jesus.
John 21:24 This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true.
The 'disciple whom Jesus loved' (John 21:20) almost certainly refers to the apostle John, though there are those who hold a different view.
There is good early church tradition that the apostle John lived into the time of the reign of Trajan (A.D. 98-117). Irenaeus of Lyons (early 2nd century – c. AD 202) writes in Against Heresies, Book II;
Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years, and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth andfiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information. And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan. [Bolding mine]
Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles. [Bolding mine]
As for Matthew plagiarizing Mark, first of all, although most scholars believe that Matthew copied Mark, not all scholars agree with that view. But even if Matthew did make use of Mark's Gospel, so what? Mark got his information from Peter who was one of the three in the innermost circle of the twelve disciples. Therefore Mark's Gospel would have contained information that Matthew might not have personally witnessed, such as the transfiguration of Jesus, which only Peter, James, and John were allowed to see.
If Matthew and Mark had not actually been the authors of the Gospel accounts attributed to them, the early church certainly could have picked more appropriate names to give as the writers if they were trying to lend authority to those Gospels. Why not put Peter's name to the Gospel of Mark if indeed Mark did not write it? After all, Mark did desert Paul during Paul's first missionary journey. And Matthew had been a tax collector. Tax collectors were not looked upon too highly by the Jews. The point being, there were better names to give as the authors of those Gospel accounts in order to give them more authority unless Mathew and Mark actually were the writers. I think the early church was in a better position to know who the writers of the Gospels were than are modern day scholars.
And almost no scholar today believes that Matthew, Mark, Luke were written as late as the second century. In fact, a very good argument can be made for dating Matthew, Mark, and Luke to no later than the early 60's. The reason being that the Gospel of Luke was written after Matthew and Mark, but Luke wrote his Gospel account before writing the book of Acts. And the fact that the book of Acts does not mention the deaths of either Peter, Paul, and James the brother of Jesus, each of whom were martyred during the mid 60's, as well as the fact that in the book of Acts there is no mention of the Neronian persecution of the church which began in A.D 64, lends strong support to an early writing of Acts, which again was written after the synoptic Gospels. Since the book of Acts covers the first 30 years or so of the early church and its growth, it's not likely that Luke would have omitted mentioning the deaths of those three prominent men of the early church. Also, there is no mention in Acts of the Jewish wars and the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in A.D. 70. Luke surely would have not have neglected to mention that detail if he had written Acts after the fact.
Furthermore, there is absolutely no reason to believe that Jesus and the disciples couldn't speak Greek. Is it more likely that Jesus and Pontus Pilate conversed in Hebrew or Aramaic, or in Greek or Latin? Since Jesus and His disciples grew up in, and lived in a multilingual environment, it's highly unlikely that they wouldn't have known how to speak Greek.
Last edited by Michael Way; 04-24-2016 at 03:52 PM..
John 3:16-18 - "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 17 "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. 18 "He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Actually, with regard to the Gospel of John, John 21:24 which was written by someone other than the author of the rest of that Gospel, states that the disciple whom Jesus loved is the author of the Gospel. And so, yes, the Gospel of John was written by an eyewitness of Jesus.
...and now you are going to tell me that this 'eye-witness' could remember VERBATIM every word spoken and by whom, every deed and every action about what went on some half a century earlier? In fact this 'eye-witness' transcribes verbatim the prayer of your Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, whilst SLEEPING with all the others. What a party trick...to be able to quote verbatim what somebody said when you are ASLEEP!! Awesome!
Quote:
There is good early church tradition that the apostle John lived into the time of the reign of Trajan (A.D. 98-117). Irenaeus of Lyons (early 2nd century – c. AD 202) writes in Against Heresies, Book II;
Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years, and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth andfiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information. And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan. [Bolding mine]
Irenaeus was a believer...like you.
Quote:
As for Matthew plagiarizing Mark, first of all, although most scholars believe that Matthew copied Mark, not all scholars agree with that view.
Most serious ones do.
Quote:
But even if Matthew did make use of Mark's Gospel, so what?
It shows that Matthew was not an eye-witness. Further evidence comes in Matthew 9:9, the author is relating the call of Matthew by Jesus: As Jesus was walking along, he saw a man called Matthew sitting at the tax booth; and he said to him, "Follow me." And he got up and followed him.
If Matthew was an eye-witness, why didn't he write 'As Jesus was walking along, he saw me sitting at the tax booth; and he said to me, "Follow me." And I got up and followed him.'
Quote:
Mark got his information from Peter who was one of the three in the innermost circle of the twelve disciples. Therefore Mark's Gospel would have contained information that Matthew might not have personally witnessed, such as the transfiguration of Jesus, which only Peter, James, and John were allowed to see.
...and how can you be sure that Peter was telling Mark the truth?
Quote:
I think the early church was in a better position to know who the writers of the Gospels were than are modern day scholars.
It would appear that the early church had never even heard of the gospels until the second century. Lets see....the first epistle of Clement of Rome which is reasonably dated to 95 CE makes no mention of any of the Gospels. This is indeed a strange omission had the Gospels been circulating at that time.
The Gospel of Luke borrows heavily from material in Josephus' later works, especially 'Life and Against Apion,' implying that the Gospel of Luke was not composed (much less published) until after 100 CE, since Josephus’ later works weren’t published before 95 CE.
None of the Gospels are mentioned in the letters of Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, which can be dated from 110 CE
Archaeologically, the earliest dated portion of any gospel is a tiny fragment consisting of a few words from what could be the Gospel of John, and this dates to 125 CE
The earliest allusion to any of the Gospels is from about 130CE in the works of Papias, who refers to a collection of Jesus’ sayings/oracles in a Hebrew book whose author is said to be the disciple Matthew. This book of sayings may refer to the lost document Q, but it obviously does not refer to the Gospel of Matthew, as we know it. Papias also mentions recollections of the disciple Peter, recorded by his secretary Mark. Though neither of these references is to what we now know as the Gospels of Mark and of Matthew, they begin to suggest that some things resembling these Gospels were in circulation after 130CE. Yet they were certainly not very well known since other prominent Christian writings from this period do not contain any references to them (e.g., Polycarp, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Exigetica, The Book of Hermas).
The first mention of the Gospels, as we know them, comes around 140CE in the work of Aristides of Athens who refers to “the holy Gospel writing”. Yet we can’t be certain that these are the same Gospels. Shortly thereafter, a Christian reformer named Marcion broke with the traditional church over the issue of Jesus’ divinity, and set up his own church, including in its writings a stripped down version of the Gospel of Luke. In 150CE Justin Martyr composed the first of his two Apologies, in which he specifically refers to the writings of Luke, Matthew, and Mark as “memoirs” (in the tradition of Papias 20 years earlier), but clearly not in the form of the Gospels as we know them. About 10 years later, Justin’s student, Tatian brought together the four Gospels and combined them into one harmonized book which he called the Diatessaron, written in Tatian’s native language of Syric. And by 180CE, Irenaeus wrote in his principal work, Against Heresies, that: 'The Gospels could not possibly be either more or less in number than they are. Since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds…Now the Gospels, in which Christ is enthroned, are like these…'
Another indication that the gospels were written in the second century comes from the genealogy in the Gospel of Matthew. Herein the inclusion of four women with "questionable" backgrounds is usually taken by scholars to be an attempt by the writers of Matthew to discount the rumours that Mary had an affair with a Roman archer. In other words, if these four women with questionable backgrounds nonetheless led exalted lives, then Mary's questionable background can be discounted too. While there is near unanimity that this is the rationale, as far as we know, rumours about Mary are a second century phenomenon, mentioned for the first time in Celsus, around 175CE. Hence, any remedies to offset these rumours must also have been from the second century.
More reading:
https://thechurchoftruth.org/synoptic-gospels-not-writen-by-matt-mark-luke-or-john/
Quote:
And almost no scholar today believes that Matthew, Mark, Luke were written as late as the second century.
Then why is there no mention of them UNTIL the second century?
Quote:
In fact, a very good argument can be made for dating Matthew, Mark, and Luke to no later than the early 60's.
Even if they were, are you still insisting that some 30 years after the fact, these people were able to remember verbatim, who said what and to whom, who went where and at what time, what they ate, what they drank etc. Can you honestly remember verbatim what was said by you and some friends when you were in the bar 30 years ago? It's ludicrous to even think that they were written by eye-witnesses.
Quote:
Furthermore, there is absolutely no reason to believe that Jesus and the disciples couldn't speak Greek.
There is no reason to believe that they did and as Hebrew or Aramaic were the common language of the area and time that they allegedly lived (I don't actually believe that they lived btw. I am simply accepting that they did for the sake of the discussion) there is no reason to believe that they spoke Greek. You are simply making it up to excuse the fact that the gospels were written in a language that the so-called 'eye-witnesses' were certain not to have spoken.
Quote:
Is it more likely that Jesus and Pontus Pilate conversed in Hebrew or Aramaic, or in Greek or Latin? Since Jesus and His disciples grew up in, and lived in a multilingual environment, it's highly unlikely that they wouldn't have known how to speak Greek.
I think you are fantasising my friend. The character of Jesus and his disciples would have spoken Aramaic and Hebrew, they were the common language of Judea in the first century CE. In Capernaum, where your Jesus allegedly spent most of his time, they spoke Aramaic.
...and now you are going to tell me that this 'eye-witness' could remember VERBATIM every word spoken and by whom, every deed and every action about what went on some half a century earlier? In fact this 'eye-witness' transcribes verbatim the prayer of your Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, whilst SLEEPING with all the others. What a party trick...to be able to quote verbatim what somebody said when you are ASLEEP!! Awesome!
Irenaeus was a believer...like you.
Most serious ones do.
It shows that Matthew was not an eye-witness. Further evidence comes in Matthew 9:9, the author is relating the call of Matthew by Jesus: As Jesus was walking along, he saw a man called Matthew sitting at the tax booth; and he said to him, "Follow me." And he got up and followed him.
If Matthew was an eye-witness, why didn't he write 'As Jesus was walking along, he saw me sitting at the tax booth; and he said to me, "Follow me." And I got up and followed him.'
...and how can you be sure that Peter was telling Mark the truth?
It would appear that the early church had never even heard of the gospels until the second century. Lets see....the first epistle of Clement of Rome which is reasonably dated to 95 CE makes no mention of any of the Gospels. This is indeed a strange omission had the Gospels been circulating at that time.
The Gospel of Luke borrows heavily from material in Josephus' later works, especially 'Life and Against Apion,' implying that the Gospel of Luke was not composed (much less published) until after 100 CE, since Josephus’ later works weren’t published before 95 CE.
None of the Gospels are mentioned in the letters of Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, which can be dated from 110 CE
Archaeologically, the earliest dated portion of any gospel is a tiny fragment consisting of a few words from what could be the Gospel of John, and this dates to 125 CE
The earliest allusion to any of the Gospels is from about 130CE in the works of Papias, who refers to a collection of Jesus’ sayings/oracles in a Hebrew book whose author is said to be the disciple Matthew. This book of sayings may refer to the lost document Q, but it obviously does not refer to the Gospel of Matthew, as we know it. Papias also mentions recollections of the disciple Peter, recorded by his secretary Mark. Though neither of these references is to what we now know as the Gospels of Mark and of Matthew, they begin to suggest that some things resembling these Gospels were in circulation after 130CE. Yet they were certainly not very well known since other prominent Christian writings from this period do not contain any references to them (e.g., Polycarp, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Exigetica, The Book of Hermas).
The first mention of the Gospels, as we know them, comes around 140CE in the work of Aristides of Athens who refers to “the holy Gospel writing”. Yet we can’t be certain that these are the same Gospels. Shortly thereafter, a Christian reformer named Marcion broke with the traditional church over the issue of Jesus’ divinity, and set up his own church, including in its writings a stripped down version of the Gospel of Luke. In 150CE Justin Martyr composed the first of his two Apologies, in which he specifically refers to the writings of Luke, Matthew, and Mark as “memoirs” (in the tradition of Papias 20 years earlier), but clearly not in the form of the Gospels as we know them. About 10 years later, Justin’s student, Tatian brought together the four Gospels and combined them into one harmonized book which he called the Diatessaron, written in Tatian’s native language of Syric. And by 180CE, Irenaeus wrote in his principal work, Against Heresies, that: 'The Gospels could not possibly be either more or less in number than they are. Since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds…Now the Gospels, in which Christ is enthroned, are like these…'
Another indication that the gospels were written in the second century comes from the genealogy in the Gospel of Matthew. Herein the inclusion of four women with "questionable" backgrounds is usually taken by scholars to be an attempt by the writers of Matthew to discount the rumours that Mary had an affair with a Roman archer. In other words, if these four women with questionable backgrounds nonetheless led exalted lives, then Mary's questionable background can be discounted too. While there is near unanimity that this is the rationale, as far as we know, rumours about Mary are a second century phenomenon, mentioned for the first time in Celsus, around 175CE. Hence, any remedies to offset these rumours must also have been from the second century.
More reading:
https://thechurchoftruth.org/synoptic-gospels-not-writen-by-matt-mark-luke-or-john/
Then why is there no mention of them UNTIL the second century?
Even if they were, are you still insisting that some 30 years after the fact, these people were able to remember verbatim, who said what and to whom, who went where and at what time, what they ate, what they drank etc. Can you honestly remember verbatim what was said by you and some friends when you were in the bar 30 years ago? It's ludicrous to even think that they were written by eye-witnesses.
There is no reason to believe that they did and as Hebrew or Aramaic were the common language of the area and time that they allegedly lived (I don't actually believe that they lived btw. I am simply accepting that they did for the sake of the discussion) there is no reason to believe that they spoke Greek. You are simply making it up to excuse the fact that the gospels were written in a language that the so-called 'eye-witnesses' were certain not to have spoken.
I think you are fantasising my friend. The character of Jesus and his disciples would have spoken Aramaic and Hebrew, they were the common language of Judea in the first century CE. In Capernaum, where your Jesus allegedly spent most of his time, they spoke Aramaic.
Events of that day were passed down by word of mouth. Most could not read and write. Just because the Gospels were written at a much later date does not mean the words were not kept alive by word of mouth nor that there were smaller versions that did not survive. You are thinking there was some kind of conspiracy but most believe someone who feared God would state things as a matter of fact.
It appears that Mike and I are the only two on this thread that believe in the Triune God
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.
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.
