Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
TripL7
Trad climber
'dago'
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2009 - 02:02am PT
|
Karl!
The author of the Gospel of John does not identify himself by name but his identity can be determined learned by the dialogue recorded in 21:19-24.
The author calls himself "the desciple whom... Jesus loved" (21:20), a designation that occurs four other times in the book (13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 217). This was the same "disciple who...wrote these things" (21:24).
The author had to be one of the twelve apostles, because he is described as leaning on Jesus' bosum at the Last Supper, an event to which only the apostles were invited (13:23; see Mark 14:17).
The Gospel of John has many touches that that appear to reflect the recollections of an eyewitness such as the house at Bethany being filled with the fragrance of the broken perfume jar (12:3)
The author new Jewish life well as seen to references to popular Messianic speculations (1:21, 7:40-42), to the hostility between the Jews and the Samaritans (4:9) and to Jewish customs, such as the duty of circumcsion on the eigth day taking precedence over the the prohibition of working on the Sabbath. (since it would have been considered work to have performed a circumcision on the Sabbath, should it have fallen on that day).
He new the geography of the Holy Land, locating Bethany about 15 stadia (about 2 miles) from Jerusalem (11:18) and mentioning Cana a village not referred to in any earlier writings known to us (2:1; 21:12).
He could not be Peter, because 21:20 states that Peter looked back and and saw this one Jesus loved, and in another place asked a question of him (13:23, 24).
On the other hand James was martyred too early to be the author of this Gospel (see Acts 12:1, 2).
The conclusion is supported by early Christians such as Polycarp (A.D. 60-1550, who was a follower of John), and early writers such as Irenaeus and Tertulian say that John was the writer. And many more wrter's, such as Ignaatius agree.
The auther of the epistle 1 John states withen the first few verses (1:1-4) the author places himself among the eyewitnesses of the earthly life of Christ, as one who literaly saw and touched "the Word of life."
Obviously such a description fits an apostle but not a second generation church leader.
Thus it is reasonable to conclude that this Gospel is written by John.
|
|
TripL7
Trad climber
'dago'
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2009 - 02:26am PT
|
Karl!
I fully agree.
I was typing my last post and just now read yours about agreeing to disagree, I am glad you suggested that.
And I likewise, agree that it would be nice if the 'Christian Right' did indeed put "Love on the Banner".
Well said my brother.
Peace and Love to you Karl.
Sincerely, John.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2009 - 02:59am PT
|
Hi John
Glad we are aligned on what really matters.
Like you though, I did some research on your previous post before reading your last one so I post this excerpt from Professor Bart Ehrman of chapel Hill regarding gospel authorship
"...A further reality is that all the Gospels were written anonymously, and none of the writers claims to be an eyewitness. Names are attached to the titles of the Gospels ("the Gospel according to Matthew"), but these titles are later additions to the Gospels, provided by editors and scribes to inform readers who the editors thought were the authorities behind the different versions. That the titles are not original to the Gospels themselves should be clear upon some simple reflection. Whoever wrote Matthew did not call it "The Gospel according to Matthew." The persons who gave it that title are telling you who, in their opinion, wrote it. Authors never title their books "according to."
Moreover, Matthew's Gospel is written completely in the third person, about what "they"—Jesus and the disciples—were doing, never about what "we"—Jesus and the rest of us—were doing. Even when this Gospel narrates the event of Matthew being called to become a disciple, it talks about "him," not about "me." Read the account for yourself (Matthew 9:9). There's not a thing in it that would make you suspect the author is talking about himself.
With John it is even more clear. At the end of the Gospel the author says of the "Beloved Disciple": "This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true" (John 21:24). Note how the author differentiates between his source of information, "the disciple who testifies," and himself: "we know that his testimony is true." He/we: this author is not the disciple. He claims to have gotten some of his information from the disciple.
As for the other Gospels, Mark was said to be not a disciple but a companion of Peter, and Luke was a companion of Paul, who also was not a disciple. Even if they had been disciples, it would not guarantee the objectivity or truthfulness of their stories. But in fact none of the writers was an eyewitness, and none of them claims to be...."
Peace
Karl
|
|
Gobee
Trad climber
Los Angeles
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2009 - 12:08pm PT
|
Matt. 3:(16)-17, (And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him;) and behold, a voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.”
Matt. 17:5, He was still speaking when, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and a voice from the cloud said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him.”
Ex. 33:20, But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live.”
John1:18, No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.
Ex. 33:11, Thus the Lord used to speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend.
Heb. 1:1, Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets,
Gen. 32:30, So Jacob called the name of the place Peniel, saying, “For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life has been delivered.”
Heb. 1:2-(3), but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. (He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power.)
|
|
TripL7
Trad climber
'dago'
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2009 - 01:32pm PT
|
Karl- "As for the other Gospels, Mark was said to be not a disciple but a companion of Peter,"
Mark is mentioned ten times in the new testament. His Jewish name was John (Acts 13:5, 13), but his Roman name was Mark(Acts 12:12,25: 15:37). He lived in Jerusalem and was a cousin of Barnabas (Col. 4:10).
He might have been the youth wearing the linen cloth at Jesus arrest (Mark 14:51), because only his, the Gospel of Mark, mentions this incident, which occurred after all the disciples had already fled.
The fact that the Apostle Peter announced his miraculous jail escape at the home of Mary, Mark's widowed mother (Acts 12:12) indicates Mark had significant contact with Peter and the other leaders of the Jerusalem church.
In A.D. 46, Mark spent time with Barnabas and Saul in the Antioch Church before he accompanied them as a helper on the first missionary journey.
Mark also helped Peter in "Babylon" (1 Peter 5:13).
Peter was Mark's primary informant. Most agree that Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome under Peter's supervision.
Mark wrote his Gospel for Gentile Christians, especially Romans. Who were facing persecution and martyrdom. He was attempting to guide and strengthen them through Nero's terrible persecutions.
The authors of the Gospels did not attach there names to them because they were already well known to the recipients.
Numerous documents from the early Church unanimously point to Mark as the author. The Roman Prologue to Mark dating 160-180 A.D. names Mark as the author.
And Irenaeus, in France in 180 A.D. announced claimed that Mark had wrote down Peters teachings. This is repeated by Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria, both in North Africa around 200 A.D.
Mark constantly uses the present tense to create the impression of an eyewitness, the kind presented as from an on the spot reporter.
He uses rhetorical questions that readers would likely ask themselves, such as, "Who can this be, that even the wind and the sea obey Him (4:41).
There are hundreds of modern day scholars, university professors and theologens with doctorates, who attest to the authenticity of the origional authors.
|
|
TripL7
Trad climber
'dago'
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2009 - 02:28pm PT
|
Dr.F- "are you a Repub. or a Dem?"
Perhaps I am unpatriotic, but I chose not to vote during the last Presidential election.
There were issues I agreed with and didn't agree with on both sides.
And besides, you have to take what is being promissed with a grain of salt.
Both sides make promises they cannot keep.
I was against going into Irac(sp.) from the get go. I felt and expressed that sentiment to who would ever listen, that it was a big mistake. I lived through the debacle that was NAM.
I beleive there is a time for war and a time for piece. That Irac (sp?), nor Viet Nam were the time for war.
And further more the middle east is much more complex than, Viet Nam.
I believe the 'Church' has thrown it self in bed with the neocon's/secular right/etc., or what ever else you want to refer to current day political trends and leaning's.
I can identify with Karl Baba's thought's, regarding the Christian Right and the "Banner of Love" etc.
What did Jesus say regarding politics? "Give to Ceasar what belongs to Ceasar..." (taxes).
There are Christians on both sides. Do you think Peter is going to be standing at the 'Pearly Gates' checking your voter registration? Hardly not.
That whole 80's hard stand Moral Majority, aligning itself with one party did not reflect the teachings of Christ (my opinion). And where has it gotten itself? Right back to where it was.
"Faith, Hope, Love....and the greatest of these is Love".
Didn't see much Love in the '80's and 90's, or now for that matter.
Peace & Love, John.
I am not saying we should not vote, on the contrary.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2009 - 02:56pm PT
|
Nice post just above regarding politics John. Love transcends parties and polemics.
Dr. F. those are interesting arguments but suppose that God has some agenda of making this earth a nice place to live. That's like assuming climbing is supposed to be perfectly safe and that an FA team should put ample bolts in all sketchy areas.
What if we assume differently, that life is a learning, evolving experience where our pain, mistakes and energy reflect ourselves and guide us to change from within? Heck, this could be a prison planet for all we know, for dirtbag souls!
Peace
Karl
|
|
TripL7
Trad climber
'dago'
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2009 - 02:57pm PT
|
navblk4!
Jesus brought the new covenant, of Grace and salvation for everyone, with His once and for all times Sacrifice.
His coming, death and resurection, was predicted for over 1,000 years prior to it's occurence.
I am not adding anything to the book of Rev.
Jesus was the Word. And "the Word became Flesh and dwelt among us." What are you saying? What are your belief's?
What were you talking about upthread when you said there are no Bibles since 1950? that contain "In the beggining was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"... I didn't put that in the bible!! The Bible authors did. I did not add anything to the book of Rev. I am quoting the Book of John.
|
|
Gobee
Trad climber
Los Angeles
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2009 - 03:07pm PT
|
Isaiah 40:(21)-22, (Do you not know? Do you not hear?
Has it not been told you from the beginning?
Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth?)
22. It is He who sits above the CIRCLE OF THE EARTH,
It was the scientist that said it, the earth was flat!
When God created us there wasn't any illness and death!
Man's higher self, without God is still like a filthy garment...
Isaiah 64:6, We have all become like one who is unclean,
and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment.
We all fade like a leaf,
and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.
Proverbs 11:28, He who trusts in his riches will fall,
But the righteous will flourish like foliage. (NKJ)
God is the fundamental reality!
|
|
Norwegian
Trad climber
Placerville, California
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2009 - 03:33pm PT
|
speaking in tongues is fore-play in my book.
|
|
Gobee
Trad climber
Los Angeles
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2009 - 03:36pm PT
|
Look at a climbing route, it starts from the bottom up?
Well it's put together a move at a time!
God made everything in order!
Also like a painting, the painter builds it up,
God is the creative force!
|
|
Gobee
Trad climber
Los Angeles
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2009 - 03:42pm PT
|
Gen 3:14-19,
The Lord God said to the serpent,
“Because you have done this,
cursed are you above all livestock
and above all beasts of the field;
on your belly you shall go,
and dust you shall eat
all the days of your life.
I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and her offspring;
he shall bruise your head,
and you shall bruise his heel.”
To the woman he said,
“I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children.
Your desire shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you.”
And to Adam he said,
“Because you have listened to the voice of your wife
and have eaten of the tree
of which I commanded you,
‘You shall not eat of it,’
cursed is the ground because of you;
in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;
thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you;
and you shall eat the plants of the field.
By the sweat of your face
you shall eat bread,
till you return to the ground,
for out of it you were taken;
for you are dust,
and to dust you shall return.”
|
|
Brian Hench
Trad climber
Anaheim, CA
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2009 - 03:48pm PT
|
Karl's post is totally on topic for a change. This is creationism in a nutshell. What he is basically saying is that since we can't know everything about the universe, why should we bother to ask questions about it? It's just too complicated for us simple humans to understand, and besides, even if we thought we understood, it could just all be an illusion. Rather than spend billions on particle accelerators, wouldn't it be so much easier to just open the Holy Book, which already has all the answers we'll ever need?
I happen to believe that human are smart enough (at least some humans) to understand our universe. Not every individual will understand everything about everything, but some individuals can know at least part of every subject. We will never, ever learn all there is to know. All we can do is keep exploring our universe and marvel at the wonder of it.
Let's imagine a bunch of Animals, living in a zoo, evolved a higher intelligence and could speak to each other but humans couldn't grasp it.
The religious animals might adopt the monkey's view, who could see and talk best, that humans were Gods, that the zoo was intelligently designed, and that following man's laws (like not biting the cage-keepers) would result in safer-better life.
The scientific animals might observe and conclude that food came in daily timed cycles, that humans were not nocturnal, and so on.
To complicate it, perhaps scientists are off in a corner of the zoo, changing the DNA of the animals and that's what made them smart enough to start this train of thought.
It's madness to think we know how this world and humans came about. Maybe God created some sentient and powerful beings and we're their science experiment, like the zoo animals are subject to an environment which is both natural and contrived, and who are both natural and genetically modified. Who really knows?
It's madness to think that science has a handle on the BIGGEST mysteries out there, which it doesn't yet have the slightest tools to consider, or even suspect lie beyond the boundaries and dimensions we have discovered so far.
It's madness to think that, even if the prophets and saviour(s) from 2000-3000 years ago knew the deepest mysteries of God and the universe, that they had any way of conveying those to the populace at the time, who couldn't understand squat.
The mystics in more modern times, and ancient as well, who have said they have seen very deeply into these biggest mysteries, have admitted that ultimately the "biggest" truth is beyond labeling with words and concepts, that our minds are limited in their use and scope to the apparent dimension of physical reality that we exist in.
You can think of Rational thought as a computer operating system that functions very well within the scope that it has programming for, but can't see or conceptualize beyond those limits.
For all we know, the physical universe could be a speck among billions of others, or the whole shebang could be merely existing as a dream in the mind of the ultimate consciousness.
Think that's crazy? Sounds crazy but everything you experience is ONLY experienced through your consciousness. Because of that, there is NO absolute proof that anything exists in the way we think it does. Everything comes to us through our awareness so it's entirely possible that awareness is all that exists.
And even if we put that aside, all the mass in the whole earth, according to science, could be squashed in a black hole to the size of less than a tennis ball. So even if science knows more, scientists as people are still seeing the whole in an illusory fashion based on the limitations of our senses.
Why don't we all just admit that the big picture, and biggest picture, are huge mysteries? Science and religion would both have more credibility if they stuck with how much they really know so far.
|
|
Brian Hench
Trad climber
Anaheim, CA
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2009 - 03:55pm PT
|
Dr. F, there were people who understood the world to be round for a very long time, longer than 600 years, such as the ancient Greeks.all people believed that the world was flat, until 600 years ago, and many scientists were beheaded for blasphemy for saying that earth was a sphere
|
|
TripL7
Trad climber
'dago'
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2009 - 04:06pm PT
|
Brian Hench- "Karl's post is entirely on topic for a change".
Karl Baba- President
Brian Hench- Vice President
Werner Braun- Minister of Higher Learning
Dr.F.- Chief of Defence (in Your Face)
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2009 - 04:20pm PT
|
"Karl, are you advocating that God is part of a conspiracy, that doesn't let us in on the information that would save us, keeps hidden, and as soon as we get close, escapes to some new location, to keep hidden
God is up there making all these judgement calls on every aspect of our lifes, don't tell them this or that, punish that guy, let those babies go to hell, since they didn't except Jesus
Judgement calls on every little piece of knowledge, and very active in staying hidden, is that your god."
I think your assessment frames God in very human terms.
It's like a kid blaming Mom and Dad for having to go to school and not feeding him cookies and cake as the entirety of dinner.
It's like blaming the Sun for burning people. Most of the energy for life on Earth on the physical level comes from the Sun and one day it's going to kill us all if we last that long. Is the Sun good or evil?
Are you a monster for what happens in your dreams? Do your dream characters blame you for dreaming them?
What if everything possible exists and we're just on the short end of the party?
What if Life reflects our own state of being and the experiment is to see if we'll learn and discover how to live with ourselves and unfold the mystery of existence? So what if it's hard as hell like a wall in Pakistan?
Folks can complain all they like but both science and religion would do well to look deeply without preconceptions about what the immensity of the mystery holds
Peace
Karl
|
|
Gobee
Trad climber
Los Angeles
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2009 - 04:31pm PT
|
Is the change from a baby to child to an adult evolution or just growth?
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2009 - 04:32pm PT
|
"What he is basically saying is that since we can't know everything about the universe, why should we bother to ask questions about it?"
I never said such a thing. In mysticism and science both, we should learn and explore all we can. Just be careful about saying what any bottom line is, cause there's always something beyond it.
Just as there was something beyond Newtonian physics, even though they are true within their realm.
I understand why folks get pissed off at religion. A lot of folks are doing the opposite of religion in religion's own name. It's hard to let go of the past.
Still, even in science there is now a "God" even though they don't call it that. According to science, everything is just forms of the same vibrating energy. Science seriously suspects all these forces are unified although proof doesn't link everything yet.
Doesn't the fact that everything is made of the Energy make that Energy the default God until science determines more about the nature and dimensions of that Energy? The same people who claim that the universal energy has no awareness and consciousness are the same people who claim our own consciousness is simply the result of electrical energy firing in our brains. Who is to say the universe isn't the brain of a higher awareness that we don't understand? Of course thinking the vast universe, that take light billions of years to traverse at lightning speed, was created by a simple, petty, human thinking creature is madness. So what? A committee of 4 year olds would be bound to misunderstand the motives, lives and powers of their parents.
Peace
Karl
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2009 - 04:38pm PT
|
"Karl, why do we need a god then, is it just to evolve towards better humans"
The saying "Man is created in God's own image" in my experience, means that God is pure awareness and that Man, at the soul level, is pure awareness as well. We share the same essence.
This being the case, we need God because God is the most essential part of our own being. We can't distance ourselves from God without distancing ourselves from our own consciousness. It's not a matter of "needing" God but of needing to get in touch with our true nature beyond the cloud of self concepts that we spin in our own minds that make us angry petty selfish unhappy beings.
I don't think God needs us in any way. I don't think we even need the idea of God. We simply have to get our inner space under control and yet psychology is one science that's still in the dark ages in many ways.
Peace
Karl
|
|
Skeptimistic
Mountain climber
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2009 - 04:55pm PT
|
-Is the change from a baby to child to an adult evolution or just growth?-
Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. The pattern of evolution is right out in the open.
As per the whole tree of knowledge thing; I just don't get why "god" would put a "tree" that bore fruit which would allow the consumer to become self aware & creative in the middle of creation if "he" didn't expect someone to eat it. And how did the snake know this? Seems like if you believe this whole scenario, you believe that "god" wanted us to be stupid & ignorant. We've already got that in spades, and some philosophies seem to embrace that more than others...
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!