The Gospel of John

neal · 04-14-09 6:19 pm

Why are you afraid... Its irrelevant. A waste of time. They are not defending your book. If they were claiming to be believers and telling people to watch out if they don't believe and acting like a know-it-all about how and why its correct and the word of some sky god then it WOULD be relevant. Its relevant that YOU have not read it.

bob_2 · 04-14-09 6:24 pm

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:The Age of Reason: Being an Investigation of True and Fabulous Theology, a deistic treatise written by eighteenth-century British radical and American revolutionary Thomas Paine, critiques institutionalized religion and challenges the inerrancy of the Bible. Published in three parts in 1794, 1795, and 1807, it was a bestseller in America, where it caused a short-lived deistic revival. British audiences, however, fearing increased political radicalism as a result of the French revolution, received it with more hostility. The Age of Reason presents common deistic arguments; for example, it highlights the corruption of the Christian Church and criticizes its efforts to acquire political power. Paine advocates reason in the place of revelation, leading him to reject miracles and to view the Bible as an ordinary piece of literature rather than as a divinely inspired text. The Age of Reason is not atheistic, but deistic: it promotes natural religion and argues for a creator-God. Most of Paine's arguments had long been available to the educated elite, but by presenting them in an engaging and irreverent style, he made deism appealing and accessible to a mass audience. The book was also inexpensive, putting it within the reach of a large number of buyers. Fearing the spread of what they viewed as potentially revolutionary ideas, the British government prosecuted printers and booksellers who tried to publish and distribute it. The Age of Reason resulted in only a brief upsurge in deistic thought in America. However, Paine's ideas inspired and guided many British freethinkers of the nineteenth century and his rhetorical style has endured even into the twenty-first century, in the works of modern writers such as Christopher Hitchens and the films and persona of Michael Moore. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Reason" target=_top>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Reason</a> NOW I SEE, Hitchens and Michael Moore. Good company to keep Neal. The Age of Reason is Deistic, which eliminates belief in any miracles, which would leave out the virgin birth, Jesus resurrection and ascension, therefore, any salvation and eternal life of any kind. I think I'll accept the review and let you read this material.

bob_2 · 04-14-09 6:26 pm

Neal if they are trying to discredit the Bible, they should have read it by your rules. Elaine and John have you read the Bible cover to cover, inquiring minds want to know.

bob_2 · 04-14-09 6:28 pm

(Message edited by Bob_2 on April 14, 2009)

neal · 04-14-09 6:31 pm

No one should try and decontruct a book that they don't know the whole context. No modern person will ever know "the whole context" of the ancient scribblings of the goat herders. However, in addition to reading the Bible multiple times I have also studied the canaanite pantheon and the archeological findings and interpretations. I have studied Zoroastrianism and read some of its scriptures. I have studied some egyptian history and archeology. I have read Josephus, and Herodotus, and some of the Gnostic Gospels, and studied the Didache, etc, etc, etc, etc, ad infinitum. I also accept that the earth is a sphere spinning at 1,000 MPH. And that there is no dome with windows and a little house where the goat herder's sky deity could smell the sweet flavor of roasting creatures. You think you can read a passage and figure out the context? Can I have some of whatever you are smoking? If you want some context... Why do you think their god appeared in flames and a cloud and a magic bush? And the ones that communicated with this deity worked in a little tent with incense burning whose recipe Moses supposedly said to keep secret on the pain of death? They were a bunch of stoners.

neal · 04-14-09 6:35 pm

...let you read this material. I read it years ago along with Paine's Common Sense which was a pivotal booklet encouraging the Revolutionary War. Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, etc were all Deists as was their contemporary Paine. PS I can't believe you had to look up a reference to know what I was talking about.

neal · 04-14-09 6:36 pm

inquiring minds want to know. Who wants to know 'cause you, Bob, most certainly do not have an inquiring mind.

john8verse32 · 04-14-09 6:48 pm

I read the KJV cover to cover as an assigned project back in 8th grade.... I admit I didn't understand much. And then I started studying science, and found I enjoyed the ability to prove or disprove things in science. and kinda let Ussher and the Old Test go out of my head.... and hope the New Test would be the way to go. Today, with the internet, much of the research and compilation has already been done for us by others, in this thread, I borrow selections from several different sources, and quote from the KJV in orange... but the problems are those which I have wondered about for years. I appreciate Bob's starting this thread about the Gospel of John... since it has become my mantra: John8verse32: "ye shall know the truth and it shall set you free" I am open to any and all reasonable explanations for the listed issues, except this kind: If we believe the Bible is innocent until proven guilty, then any possible answer should be good enough to nullify the charge of error.... When a person studies the Bible and comes across passages that may seem contradictory at first glance ... he does not necessarily have to pin down the exact solution in order to show their truthfulness..... wouldn't you loved to have been able to use that ridiculous excuse to your parents years ago!!! no dad...I didn't smoke...you must presume my innocence, and therefore, I do not necessarily have to pin down the exact solution in order to show my truthfulness..... but here is the main problem with the above logic: Remember, we are not told all of the facts in the story—the Bible is not obligated to fill in every detail of every event. ...but when the Bible fills in details which differ from writer to writer? (one donkey or two? one creation, or two? the cock crew once..no, twice; Judas hung himself... no...his insides fell out; Judas himself bought the field..no the pharisees did.) ...or when the Bible explains details which seemingly cannot be.... such as the claim that the world was created in 144 hrs when limestone took mega years to be layered down by the giga death of tiny marine organisms...(meaning death before "sin").... When I read the Bible now, i look for the paul harvey story behind the story... the hidden gems of possible truth revealed by the stories... .... Noah's flood? didn't happen that way... BUT.... there has been constant flooding of coastlines by rising seas... possibly leading to the story which the Hebrews probably copied in the libraries of Babylon.... Garden of Eden? probably did exist (sans talking snake however)... at the head of the now flooded Persian Gulf... where 4 rivers DID meet before the ocean levels flooded the place... Hebrews multi-million man march across the desert for "40" yrs in the Sinai? probably exaggerated, but small groups of proto-Hebrews have remembered the story, and expanded upon it like they did with the borrowed river-raft trip of Sargon and applied it to glorify Moses... there is still much to learn... and I'm smart enuf to admit I do not know all the answers...forcing me to admit my "agnostic" (lack of) beliefs. but at least I'm still searching and studying, as opposed to the lucky ones who already know what they want, and don't need new evidence or new ideas. and Bob hit the proverbial nail on the head when he admitted: You read the Bible four times, God's Word, and you are an athietist. Says a lot for reading every word and its effect on people. May opposite to what the author intended. ...I ask.... what IF the Bible had been written with more concision, more consistancy, and more clearly? and since it is the supposed manual by which we are to be saved or killed, why is it fair that God allowed any inconsistancies at all to be interspersed in His inspired book? God gave us brains... shouldn't we use them? God gave us rocks...and they disagree with the conclusions reached by a literal reading of His book of words. The book of words was, imho, infected by peoples ideas. The book of rocks was writ in Gods own hand. No people got involved in turning dead protozoans into limestone, or turning magna into radiodatable rocks. which should we believe? the rocks..writ with God's own hand?? or the words told by shepherds? its interesting to read both. some apparently already know what they need to know, and have no need to read either.

neal · 04-14-09 7:29 pm

Hey Bob I had a little spare time today to post. Probably won't again for a while, if ever. However, I thought I would leave you with this little tid-bit.... Ya know John Knox, your church's hero, blah blah, blah. Well, since I posted last (and don't have the time to find the relevant thread) I remembered that he had an affair with his father's wife (his step-mother). Isn't that an abomination in the Bible just like two guys getting it on an abomination? Its the equivalent of saying you go to a church founded by a queer. Cheerio!

elaine · 04-14-09 9:54 pm

Most atheists and agnostics became of that persuasion by simply reading the Bible; something that fewer "believers" have ever done. Why do believers say they believe everything in the Bible, and then can't even recall the names of the great patriarchs, whether it was Noah or Jonah who built the ark, can name few, if any of the Ten Commandments, don't know who Cain & Abel were, or confused about David's great sin; believe that Solomon wrote the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes, and that David wrote all the Psalms while he was killing, and awhoring. You should read "The Bible Unearthed" giving the very latest archaeological findings in Israel. Then tell us your review of that book. Bob, you do the copy & paste routine and let John Gil speak for you, as evidently you aren't able to defend your positions without some assistance. You believe: but you know not what. Maybe you believe in believing

bob_2 · 04-14-09 10:20 pm

How about the source on the last tidbit. I am not a big fan of the Presbyterian doctrines. I think one can receive a blessing in their worship services but some of their doctrine is incorrect theologically. However, I looked at several bios of John Knox and the only racy thing I could find is at 50 he married his second wife of 17. WOW. Finally, I don't mind searching for truth, but that, I believe, is not what you, John and Elaine are doing. If it was, before you abandon, what you believe to be a saving doctrine, you would find something to replace that saving doctrine, otherwise you are lost, with no hope. The stories of one donkey of clothes on "them" and Jesus sitting on "them" meaning sitting on two donkeys or the disciples clothes gets petty, in my opinion. I was always taught that the prophecy of the colt, and foal were what identified the correct animal, that there were two of them, a mother and foal. You, John, just wish to show that not everyone told the story the same way so the Bible can't be God's word. I am not prepared to make that drastic a disposal of what I believe to be the Word of God and the explanation of the way to eternal life. The "book of rocks" can't do that, can it??? A reasonable, courteous discussion of the Bible's apparent contradictions, I have not problem with, but suggesting pagan copying, and a murderous God destroying innocents, when sin was rampant, is over looking a few details, and doing it in a mocking way. That scares me, because God is all powerful, and will not be mocked.

bob_2 · 04-14-09 10:25 pm

When stumped on a hard question in the Bible, I will turn to John Gill who has many scholars backing him up. Elaine, your danger is sticking to your own mind for your answers. When I see you, John or Neal doing that, I seek safety in numbers. Raw reading of the Bible without scholarly help can send one to atheism. I don't plan to go that route, because it holds no hope. BTW, Elaine have you read the Bible cover to cover and what version.

bob_2 · 04-14-09 11:24 pm

Neal, are you into rumor and gossip, is that why you choose not to reveal the source on John Knox. Well note this: <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Knox's remaining years were difficult. Slander surrounded him. He was said to have bedded his mother-in-law and his stepmother as well. The slander continued for fifty years, becoming increasingly ridiculous; it was said that he committed incest, when the date of the supposed deed was twenty years after Knox had died. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <a href="http://www.victorshepherd.on.ca/Heritage/johnknox.htm" target=_top>http://www.victorshepherd.on.ca/Heritage/johnknox. htm</a>

john8verse32 · 04-14-09 11:50 pm

there are multiple differences between the gospels about the crucifixion, what Jesus said, what the sign over his head said, etc... and what the meaning of jesus statement to the theif meant: where do you put the comma in this: verily verily I say unto you this day thou shalt be with me in paradise. because you canmake it mean two entirelydifferent things relative to death, soul sleep, and when we go to heaven!!! but after the crucifixion, theGospel of John tries to keep things simple... such as in the question of how many womencame to the empty tomb? John says one... John 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre. Matthew 28:1 claims two!!! As it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. Mark 16:1 goes one better, gets the total up to three: And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him. Luke 24:1, 10 brings the total up to five or more!! Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them. ... It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles so, the most important thing in all Christianity relative to beliefs, cannot be agreed upon by the gospels starting from the very beginning of the discovery of the empty tomb.

bob_2 · 04-14-09 11:59 pm

Source if other than just the Bible. The questions are too orderly to be of your own making. If other than just the Bible be honest who the skeptic is writing this stuff. And to what end, the difference in storytelling is normal of different men writing. You may argue, can God, an knowing all seeing, have them all coordinated. I think maybe it is more powerful that there are some discrepencies, it shows that men were actual witnesses, and wrote about it as they remembered it.

john8verse32 · 04-15-09 12:00 am

the question of whom Jesus first appeared to after his resurection is not resolved in the Gospels. John 20:11-14 says the first eyewitness to the resurrected Jesus was only Mary.... But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping ... and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. Matthew 28:1, 9 claims that there were two marys: In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.... And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him. Mark 16:9 says it was only mary Magdalene: Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. Luke 24:13-31 omits the Marys, and goes with a Cleopas: And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus.... And the one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answering said unto him, Art thou only a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast not known the things which are come to pass there in these days? ... And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them. And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight. 1 Corinthians 15:4-5 Paul claims somebody named Cephas was thefirst to see the risin Jesus... omitting all the others. And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve ...which may be another name for Peter? isn't this a problem? the message of jesus resurrection should have deserved better documentation if it was to be believed by everybody.

bob_2 · 04-15-09 12:05 am

This flows like it is not coming from just your raw reading of the Bible. Source please if that is the case. The discrepancies I think make it more human, and not so manufacturered or manipulated, or conspiritorial. None of the discrepancies are fatal flaws, in my opinion. (Message edited by Bob_2 on April 15, 2009)

john8verse32 · 04-15-09 12:13 am

the eye witness report is further flawed: how many "angels" were seen in the tomb, and were they sitting or standing? our guy John 20:11-12 says: But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre, And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain. but Luke 24:3-4 writes it differently: And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus. And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments so is it two angels standing? or sitting? ya, its only a minor issue, but Mark 16:5 only writes of ONE angel: And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted. at least all of the above claim they saw the angels INSIDE the tomb... but Matt sees the angel OUTSIDE: Matthew 28:2 The angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. was it OK to touch Jesus before His ascension? according to John 20:17 Jesus didn't let people touch him before his ascension. Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father. but all theother gospels say it was OK to touch Jesus: Matthew 28:9 And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him. Luke 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me. even John says it was OK...but later: John 20:26-27 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side. ***************************************** why does it have to be so confused, and therefore potentially confusing?

john8verse32 · 04-15-09 12:36 am

the last part of the gospel of John is especially interesting to me since I invested 7, yes, a perfect 7 years of my life as a fisherman (salmon in alaska, commercially). Interestingly, John is the ONLY gospel to take note of this event which the other gospels totally ignore for some strange reason. (CEV) John 21:1 Jesus later appeared to his disciples along the shore of Lake Tiberias. 2 Simon Peter, Thomas the Twin, Nathanael from Cana in Galilee, and the brothers James and John, were there, together with two other disciples. 3 Simon Peter said, "I'm going fishing!" The others said, "We will go with you." They went out in their boat. But they didn't catch a thing that night. 4 Early the next morning Jesus stood on the shore, but the disciples did not realize who he was. 5 Jesus shouted, "Friends, have you caught anything?" "No!" they answered. 6 So he told them, "Let your net down on the right side of your boat, and you will catch some fish." They did, and the net was so full of fish that they could not drag it up into the boat. and I learned that when your net is in the boat, you do not catch many fish!!! Jesus innately knew this, and told the guys to put their net back in the water!!! smart and effective!!! 7 Jesus' favorite disciple told Peter, "It's the Lord!" When Simon heard that it was the Lord, he put on the clothes that he had taken off while he was working. the KJV says Peter was fishing NAKED!!! Then he jumped into the water. 8 The boat was only about a hundred yards from shore. So the other disciples stayed in the boat and dragged in the net full of fish. 9 When the disciples got out of the boat, they saw some bread and a charcoal fire with fish on it. 10 Jesus told his disciples, "Bring some of the fish you just caught." 11 Simon Peter got back into the boat and dragged the net to shore. In it were one hundred fifty-three large fish, but still the net did not rip. 12 Jesus said, "Come and eat!" But none of the disciples dared ask who he was. They knew he was the Lord. 13 Jesus took the bread in his hands and gave some of it to his disciples. He did the same with the fish. 14 This was the third time that Jesus appeared to his disciples after he was raised from death but John is the only place where this story is recounted. its so full of pathos and people interest, that one wonders why the other gospels omit it... unless....it was not sufficently documented for their editorial standards, but John the beloved wanted to tell the lovely tale either way. and in the process, write himself into the story as ...Jesus' favorite disciple

john8verse32 · 04-15-09 9:32 am

This flows like it is not coming from just your raw reading of the Bible. lets not forget, I am a product of EGW guided schools here in America (not Canada) and was impressed with the ability to take others works, ah, er, "borrow", and make them "flow" into what appears to be my own work. Source please if that is the case. multiple "sources... the Bible itself from <a href="http://www.olivetree.com" target=_top>www.olivetree.com</a> where you can try different translations <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/" target=_top>http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/chri stianity/</a> many separate questions here, especially important the Donald Morgan links <a href="http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/" target=_top>http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/</a> especially useful taking the Bible line by line <a href="http://freethought.mbdojo.com/biblical_problems.htm" target=_top>http://freethought.mbdojo.com/biblical_problems.ht m</a> standard "errancy" issues <a href="http://ffrf.org/books/lfif/?t=contra" target=_top>http://ffrf.org/books/lfif/?t=contra</a> more "errancy" lists from Barker, who was a minister of the gospel until, he says, he "saw the light" <a href="http://ffrf.org/books/lfif/?t=stone" target=_top>http://ffrf.org/books/lfif/?t=stone</a> especially current around Easter The discrepancies I think make it more human, but isn't this supposed to be the"word of God"???? and not so manufacturered or manipulated, or conspiritorial. Lots incestuous romp in the cave with his daughters made it a Lot easier for the Hebrews to kill and evict the resulting SOB's from their land since they were not able (according to Hebrew law) to inherit that land which the hebrews claimed all the way back to OldeAbe...and which they claimed their God had given to them!!! isn't this a bit on the questionable side? Doesn't it seem the story could have been contrived and told around the campfire in order to motivate and justify the Hebrews massacre of the Moabites and the taking of their virgins to use? or do you really believe a drunken old cave man could get it up successfully two nights in a row..with his daughters no less... and the gals would immediately know they were preggers? None of the discrepancies are fatal flaws, in my opinion. the mixed up, poorly documented appearance of the risin Christ is at least a poor way to prove this earth changing fact to the world.... and if, as some claim, Christianity itself rises or falls on the resurrection..... it could have been documented better. if I had been consulted, I would have suggested to send Jesus back to old Pontius himself....and quickly the word of the DOCUMENTED resurrection would have spread around the Roman World.... everybody would have believed... the romans would not have massacred Christians this might have even reached Arabia, and replaced theneed for the tale of Mohammed which later divided the world and, if the story is true, Jesus might have been able to STAY here!!! make the world a better place.... no need for a 2nd coming thru the non existant "hole in Orion"!!! (Message edited by john8verse32 on April 15, 2009)

bob_2 · 04-15-09 9:54 am

I guess it proves that the Bible wasn't edited as you guys claim. It was written perfectly, so you can't claim a plot or conspiracy. John, are you confused about the BIG stuff. Do you know what Christ claims is the way to eternal life? Or do you have a flaw list on that. That I would be interested in or concerned about.

bob_2 · 04-15-09 10:26 am

Since John admits he did read the whole Bible at a young age, though not understanding much, now we just have to get Elaine's answer, since she has been playing along with Neal's mockery. Own up to the truth, Elaine, or are you being evasive. (Message edited by Bob_2 on April 15, 2009)

john8verse32 · 04-15-09 11:33 am

It was written perfectly Matt 27:3 as told by a writer who always tried to prove Jesus was the Messiah.... Judas had betrayed Jesus, but when he learned that Jesus had been sentenced to death, he was sorry for what he had done. He returned the thirty silver coins to the chief priests and leaders 4 and said, "I have sinned by betraying a man who has never done anything wrong." "So what? That's your problem," they replied. 5 Judas threw the money into the temple and then went out and hanged himself. 6 The chief priests picked up the money and said, "This money was paid to have a man killed. We can't put it in the temple treasury." 7 Then they had a meeting and decided to buy a field that belonged to someone who made clay pots. They wanted to use it as a graveyard for foreigners. 8 That's why people still call that place "Field of Blood." or? Acts 1: 14 as told by Peter...an eye witness and participant in the whole event: The apostles often met together and prayed with a single purpose in mind. The women and Mary the mother of Jesus would meet with them, and so would his brothers. 15 One day there were about one hundred twenty of the Lord's followers meeting together, and Peter stood up to speak to them. 16 17 He said: My friends, long ago by the power of the Holy Spirit, David said something about Judas, and what he said has now happened. Judas was one of us and had worked with us, but he brought the mob to arrest Jesus. 18 Then Judas bought some land with the money he was given for doing that evil thing. He fell headfirst into the field. His body burst open, and all his insides came out. 19 When the people of Jerusalem found out about this, they called the place Akeldama, which in the local language means "Field of Blood." } so whom do we believe: Peter? who was an eye witness..... or Matt who was always trying to prove something? Adventures in Dying – the Judas Iscariot story <a href="http://www.goatstar.org/adventures-in-dying-%e2%80%93-the-judas-iscariot-story/" target=_top>http://www.goatstar.org/adventures-in-dying-%e2%80 %93-the-judas-iscariot-story/</a> Judas Iscariot was one of the twelve disciples of Jesus. He’s best known for betraying Jesus by smooching him. This ID’ed Jesus to the cops who swooped in for the arrest (all in a day’s work for Jerusalem’s finest). Judas had been paid in silver coins for putting the finger on Jesus. Two Bible authors appear to blatantly contradict each other about what happened next. In one version of the story (Mat 27:5) Judas is feeling terribly about what he did. He goes back to his financers, throws those nasty coins down, and goes off to commit suicide by hanging himself. Afterwards, the chief priests decide to buy a field with that money for burying foreigners (hopefully after they had passed on). In another version of the story (Act 1:18) Judas doesn’t return to throw down the coins and he doesn’t commit suicide. He keeps the money and instead *he* buys the field with it, not the chief priests. The author of Acts is very sparse on the details, but apparently Judas trips on something while skipping along in his new field and falls headfirst onto some sharp objects, gashing out his stomach and redistributing his vital organs back to nature. Not so much a suicide as a terrible accident. Apologetics try to reconcile the contradictions by ignoring the problem with who bought the field. Clearly one says Judas and the other, the Chief Priests. Instead they claim that Judas was a waffler, a flip-flopper who couldn’t make up his mind about how he felt about his betrayal. In their explanation Judas took the money, then he felt badly so he returned the money, and (what the Bible doesn’t tell you) he started feeling OK again (possibly after seeing his therapist?) and returned to gather up those nasty coins he had thrown down to buy the field (why couldn’t he have been a strong steady betrayist?) Some apologetics then claim that Judas hung himself from a tree next to a hill on his ill gotten property and when his rope eventually broke, they have him cart wheeling down the slope to conveniently explain his stomach gushing. Some apologetics however do away with the hill and have Judas simply hurling himself onto a huge spike which they claim was the standard method of “hanging” in his day. This turns Judas into a Shish Kabob which they assert solves the hanging vs. innards dilemma. This just goes to show that if people are willing to jump through enough hoops they can rationalize just about anything that would spoil their day.

renie · 04-15-09 1:38 pm

Okay, Bob. I don't think anyone here needs to have on their resume the fact that they have read the bible all the way through. I very much respect your knowledge of the bible, Bob. And I respect the opinions that everyone, especially Elaine, whom you seemingly want to take to the wood-shed, bring to this site. Some of you have degrees based on your study of the bible. Probably no one here could come close to the 140 times my mom read the Bible through. She, like our John A., began to question more and more about the vengeful God of the OT. Even dear old Mother Teresa questioned, not only the existance of God, but his actions. How about good old doubting Thomas?

bob_2 · 04-15-09 1:59 pm

Renie, I appreciate your words but, and take this the right way, where were you when Neal was ridiculing the h*ll out of me for not reading or having on my resume, that I had read the whole Bible cover to cover. Elaine by the way hasn't stopped taking or trying to take me to the wood shed since she has read all the skeptical books she has. I think I'll leave the question for Elaine about reading the Bible all the way through, if she has, she'll be proud to admit it, if she hasn't, it will serve her right for not speaking up in my defense when Neal was mocking me for not reading it cover to cover. Fair enough, Renie???? As far as John and his questions, does he think that he has hit pay dirt and destroyed God with his questions. The Old Testament culture was what it was. You nor I nor John can make it today's culture with modern understanding of today's science, the sooner we quit mocking God for the OT, and start realizing His many traits contain wrath at wickness, AND HE MEANS IT. He will purge the world of wisked evil people and those that believed in Him and allowed the Spirit to empower their lives will live forever. Sound good. I don't spend too much time dwelling on or thinking I can choose for an all wise God how He will destroy wickedness. Why do certain people here want to JUDGE God by what he says He is going to do to purge sin from the world. He created it and you and me, so I feel really good about the traits of God, sort of like those marksmen that freed that captain, don't you think he probably hugged those guys, even though that captain would never choose to be a marksman himself? As far as the was the NT author write, maybe I'll take John serious when he starts following the rules of capitalization. He writes how he writes, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and Paul, write how they write. Some people WHO WISH TO MOCK GOD AND TRY TO CREATE THEIR OWN WAY TO HEAVEN AND ETERNAL LIFE TRY TO GO BACK THOUSANDS OF YEARS AND READ MINDS AND HEARTS FROM THIS PROXIMITY, IS THAT SMART OR INTELLIGENT, IF THEY ARE NOT ANTHROPOLOGISTS OR LINGUISTS OR PROFESSIONAL TEXT CRITICS???

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#51 04-14-09 6:19 pm

Re: The Gospel of John

#52 04-14-09 6:24 pm

Re: The Gospel of John

#53 04-14-09 6:26 pm

Re: The Gospel of John

#54 04-14-09 6:28 pm

Re: The Gospel of John

#55 04-14-09 6:31 pm

Re: The Gospel of John

#56 04-14-09 6:35 pm

Re: The Gospel of John

#57 04-14-09 6:36 pm

Re: The Gospel of John

#58 04-14-09 6:48 pm

Re: The Gospel of John

#59 04-14-09 7:29 pm

Re: The Gospel of John

#60 04-14-09 9:54 pm

Re: The Gospel of John

#61 04-14-09 10:20 pm

Re: The Gospel of John

#62 04-14-09 10:25 pm

Re: The Gospel of John

#63 04-14-09 11:24 pm

Re: The Gospel of John

#64 04-14-09 11:50 pm

Re: The Gospel of John

#65 04-14-09 11:59 pm

Re: The Gospel of John

#66 04-15-09 12:00 am

Re: The Gospel of John

#67 04-15-09 12:05 am

Re: The Gospel of John

#68 04-15-09 12:13 am

Re: The Gospel of John

#69 04-15-09 12:36 am

Re: The Gospel of John

#70 04-15-09 9:32 am

Re: The Gospel of John

#71 04-15-09 9:54 am

Re: The Gospel of John

#72 04-15-09 10:26 am

Re: The Gospel of John

#73 04-15-09 11:33 am

Re: The Gospel of John

#74 04-15-09 1:38 pm

Re: The Gospel of John

#75 04-15-09 1:59 pm

Re: The Gospel of John

Board footer