Total Posts:43|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Gospel of John.

Gentorev
Posts: 2,885
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 10:33:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Does John say that he ate the Passover meal with Jesus before he was crucified?
The tongue, the sharp two edged sword that divides the spirit from the soul.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 10:59:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2014 10:33:14 PM, Gentorev wrote:
Does John say that he ate the Passover meal with Jesus before he was crucified?

John who? Do you think you know who wrote the "Gospel of John"?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 12:31:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2014 10:33:14 PM, Gentorev wrote:
Does John say that he ate the Passover meal with Jesus before he was crucified?

No. Jesus died on the day of preparation for Passover according to the book of John.

John 19:14-15
14 Now it was the day of preparation for the Passover; it was about the sixth hour. And he *said to the Jews, "Behold, your King!" 15 So they cried out, "Away with Him, away with Him, crucify Him!" Pilate *said to them, "Shall I crucify your King?" The chief priests answered, "We have no king but Caesar.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 1:55:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2014 10:59:18 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/5/2014 10:33:14 PM, Gentorev wrote:
Does John say that he ate the Passover meal with Jesus before he was crucified?

John who? Do you think you know who wrote the "Gospel of John"?

It was written by "the disciple whom Jesus loved" and is attributed by all early Christians to the apostle John.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,482
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 5:05:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/5/2014 10:59:18 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/5/2014 10:33:14 PM, Gentorev wrote:
Does John say that he ate the Passover meal with Jesus before he was crucified?

John who? Do you think you know who wrote the "Gospel of John"?

Gospel according to* John
Never fart near dog
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,482
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 5:10:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/6/2014 1:55:41 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 12/5/2014 10:59:18 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/5/2014 10:33:14 PM, Gentorev wrote:
Does John say that he ate the Passover meal with Jesus before he was crucified?

John who? Do you think you know who wrote the "Gospel of John"?

It was written by "the disciple whom Jesus loved" and is attributed by all early Christians to the apostle John.

it was written by "the disciple whom Jesus loved" around 90AD. this disciple wrote this stuff 60 years after Jesus (pbuh) death... yeah that makes sense to you?
Never fart near dog
Gentorev
Posts: 2,885
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 5:51:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/6/2014 12:31:23 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/5/2014 10:33:14 PM, Gentorev wrote:
Does John say that he ate the Passover meal with Jesus before he was crucified?

No. Jesus died on the day of preparation for Passover according to the book of John.

John 19:14-15
14 Now it was the day of preparation for the Passover; it was about the sixth hour. And he *said to the Jews, "Behold, your King!" 15 So they cried out, "Away with Him, away with Him, crucify Him!" Pilate *said to them, "Shall I crucify your King?" The chief priests answered, "We have no king but Caesar.

The Gospel of John was compiled from a selection of his personal memoirs, as seen in John 21: 24-25; the Gospels of Matthew and Luk,e as revealed by Luke himself, were compiled from the works of others who had recorded 'to the best of their ability,' the stories that they had been told by those who had known the man Jesus.

The Gospel of Mark, who is believed by some to have been the son of Peter, may have been one of the records from which Matthew and Luke compiled parts of their Gospels

The early manuscript of Mark, from which Matthew and Luke appear to have taken some of their material, would have been copied many times and sent to the different communities of Christians, and perhaps Matthew and Luke copied some of the records of the life of Jesus, from different copies, in which some errors in copying were made, such as when Matthew speaks of the triumphant entry of Jesus into Jerusalem, he states the Jesus drove the dishonest money changers out of the Temple on that day, while Mark has Jesus driving them out on the day after his triumphant entry into Jerusalem.

But you are correct, The last supper that John had with Jesus was in the evening that was the beginning of the day of preparation to the Passover, and not the Passover meal itself, which was to be eaten on the evening after the sun had set on the day of preparation to the Passover,the day when Jesus, "The reality of the Passover Lamb" was slaughtered.
The tongue, the sharp two edged sword that divides the spirit from the soul.
Gentorev
Posts: 2,885
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 6:11:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The sixth hour when Jesus stood before the judgement seat of Pilate, was midnight. The Jewish day comprised of 12 hours of night and 12 hours of daylight. When Jesus stood before Pilate at midnight, the Jews would not enter the Palace of the gentile as to be defiled and unable to eat of the Passover next evening.

Jesus was hung on the cross at the third hour of the day of preparation 9 AM, at the sixth hour of the day of preparation, (Mid day) Darkness covered the land which remained in darkness until Jesus gave up his spirit in the ninth hour of the day of preparation, 3 PM.

A day is classified as a period of darkness, followed by an equal period of Light. 3 hours of darkness followed by three hours of light before Jesus was laid in the bowels of the earth at 6 PM.
The tongue, the sharp two edged sword that divides the spirit from the soul.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 7:37:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/6/2014 5:10:43 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 12/6/2014 1:55:41 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 12/5/2014 10:59:18 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/5/2014 10:33:14 PM, Gentorev wrote:
Does John say that he ate the Passover meal with Jesus before he was crucified?

John who? Do you think you know who wrote the "Gospel of John"?

It was written by "the disciple whom Jesus loved" and is attributed by all early Christians to the apostle John.

it was written by "the disciple whom Jesus loved" around 90AD. this disciple wrote this stuff 60 years after Jesus (pbuh) death... yeah that makes sense to you?

I never said it was written in 90 AD or anywhere around 90 AD. To the contrary, I believe that the entire NT was written prior to AD 70.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,482
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 7:42:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/6/2014 7:37:50 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 12/6/2014 5:10:43 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 12/6/2014 1:55:41 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 12/5/2014 10:59:18 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/5/2014 10:33:14 PM, Gentorev wrote:
Does John say that he ate the Passover meal with Jesus before he was crucified?

John who? Do you think you know who wrote the "Gospel of John"?

It was written by "the disciple whom Jesus loved" and is attributed by all early Christians to the apostle John.

it was written by "the disciple whom Jesus loved" around 90AD. this disciple wrote this stuff 60 years after Jesus (pbuh) death... yeah that makes sense to you?

I never said it was written in 90 AD or anywhere around 90 AD. To the contrary, I believe that the entire NT was written prior to AD 70.

oh wait so you reject scholarship?
Never fart near dog
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 7:47:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/6/2014 7:42:21 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 12/6/2014 7:37:50 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 12/6/2014 5:10:43 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 12/6/2014 1:55:41 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 12/5/2014 10:59:18 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/5/2014 10:33:14 PM, Gentorev wrote:
Does John say that he ate the Passover meal with Jesus before he was crucified?

John who? Do you think you know who wrote the "Gospel of John"?

It was written by "the disciple whom Jesus loved" and is attributed by all early Christians to the apostle John.

it was written by "the disciple whom Jesus loved" around 90AD. this disciple wrote this stuff 60 years after Jesus (pbuh) death... yeah that makes sense to you?

I never said it was written in 90 AD or anywhere around 90 AD. To the contrary, I believe that the entire NT was written prior to AD 70.

oh wait so you reject scholarship?

I could hardly care less what "scholarshp" has to say on this or that when "scholarship" hasn't got a reason in the world to back it up. "Scholarship", remember, rejects inspiration in the first place, thus is better labeled "infidelic scholarship."

There is not one good reason to believe that John was written in AD 90 or thereabouts. There is no mention of the fall of Jerusalem at the hands of the Romans in AD 70 as an accomplished event in the entire Bible. Wonder why that is? To fool everybody?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 6:32:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/6/2014 5:05:24 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 12/5/2014 10:59:18 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/5/2014 10:33:14 PM, Gentorev wrote:
Does John say that he ate the Passover meal with Jesus before he was crucified?

John who? Do you think you know who wrote the "Gospel of John"?

Gospel according to* John

Was not written by John... which is my point.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 6:33:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/6/2014 1:55:41 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 12/5/2014 10:59:18 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/5/2014 10:33:14 PM, Gentorev wrote:
Does John say that he ate the Passover meal with Jesus before he was crucified?

John who? Do you think you know who wrote the "Gospel of John"?

It was written by "the disciple whom Jesus loved" and is attributed by all early Christians to the apostle John.

Who were wrong because they didn't realize that some of the material was copied from the "Gospel of Mark", and some of it was copied from the works of Flavius Josephus. What is it about being a Christian which makes you think that the more ancient the people, the less fallible they were? It actually works much the other way around.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
dee-em
Posts: 6,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 6:44:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/6/2014 7:47:10 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 12/6/2014 7:42:21 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 12/6/2014 7:37:50 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 12/6/2014 5:10:43 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 12/6/2014 1:55:41 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 12/5/2014 10:59:18 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/5/2014 10:33:14 PM, Gentorev wrote:
Does John say that he ate the Passover meal with Jesus before he was crucified?

John who? Do you think you know who wrote the "Gospel of John"?

It was written by "the disciple whom Jesus loved" and is attributed by all early Christians to the apostle John.

it was written by "the disciple whom Jesus loved" around 90AD. this disciple wrote this stuff 60 years after Jesus (pbuh) death... yeah that makes sense to you?

I never said it was written in 90 AD or anywhere around 90 AD. To the contrary, I believe that the entire NT was written prior to AD 70.

oh wait so you reject scholarship?

I could hardly care less what "scholarshp" has to say on this or that when "scholarship" hasn't got a reason in the world to back it up. "Scholarship", remember, rejects inspiration in the first place, thus is better labeled "infidelic scholarship."

*sigh*

There is not one good reason to believe that John was written in AD 90 or thereabouts. There is no mention of the fall of Jerusalem at the hands of the Romans in AD 70 as an accomplished event in the entire Bible. Wonder why that is? To fool everybody?

Don't be foolish. If you were writing about the life and times of a Jesus character set at a particular time, and you wanted to create the impression you were a witness to it, would you give yourself away by revealing knowledge you couldn't possibly have given the setting? The only way you could do it is by couching it as a "prophecy' of some kind.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 9:34:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
There are some quotes in the new testament that came from God's chosen saints but most of it was written by antichrists who had no clue who God was or why the saints were in this world. They liked the effect that their true gospel had on all of God's chosen believers who were eventually deceived by the antichrists. All the true saints and some of God's believers were killed by the jealousy of these religious antichrists who practiced religious traditions. These antichrists are the one's who started Christianity.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2014 1:01:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/6/2014 6:33:41 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/6/2014 1:55:41 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 12/5/2014 10:59:18 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/5/2014 10:33:14 PM, Gentorev wrote:
Does John say that he ate the Passover meal with Jesus before he was crucified?

John who? Do you think you know who wrote the "Gospel of John"?

It was written by "the disciple whom Jesus loved" and is attributed by all early Christians to the apostle John.

Who were wrong because they didn't realize that some of the material was copied from the "Gospel of Mark", and some of it was copied from the works of Flavius Josephus.

Exactly how did you determine that one person copied another? After all, I've written three or four paragraphs in answer to discussion questions, and my answer was practically verbatim the answers of ten other people in the same class.

When you've explained that, then kindly inform us the reasons that you know which particular person "wrote out" his material all on his own.

We'll never see an answer to those.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2014 1:03:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/6/2014 6:44:18 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/6/2014 7:47:10 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 12/6/2014 7:42:21 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 12/6/2014 7:37:50 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 12/6/2014 5:10:43 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 12/6/2014 1:55:41 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 12/5/2014 10:59:18 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/5/2014 10:33:14 PM, Gentorev wrote:
Does John say that he ate the Passover meal with Jesus before he was crucified?

John who? Do you think you know who wrote the "Gospel of John"?

It was written by "the disciple whom Jesus loved" and is attributed by all early Christians to the apostle John.

it was written by "the disciple whom Jesus loved" around 90AD. this disciple wrote this stuff 60 years after Jesus (pbuh) death... yeah that makes sense to you?

I never said it was written in 90 AD or anywhere around 90 AD. To the contrary, I believe that the entire NT was written prior to AD 70.

oh wait so you reject scholarship?

I could hardly care less what "scholarshp" has to say on this or that when "scholarship" hasn't got a reason in the world to back it up. "Scholarship", remember, rejects inspiration in the first place, thus is better labeled "infidelic scholarship."

*sigh*

There is not one good reason to believe that John was written in AD 90 or thereabouts. There is no mention of the fall of Jerusalem at the hands of the Romans in AD 70 as an accomplished event in the entire Bible. Wonder why that is? To fool everybody?

Don't be foolish. If you were writing about the life and times of a Jesus character set at a particular time, and you wanted to create the impression you were a witness to it, would you give yourself away by revealing knowledge you couldn't possibly have given the setting? The only way you could do it is by couching it as a "prophecy' of some kind.

I'll take it that your answer is "yes". Is that the best you have to offer?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
dee-em
Posts: 6,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2014 1:22:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/7/2014 1:03:55 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 12/6/2014 6:44:18 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/6/2014 7:47:10 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 12/6/2014 7:42:21 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 12/6/2014 7:37:50 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 12/6/2014 5:10:43 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 12/6/2014 1:55:41 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 12/5/2014 10:59:18 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/5/2014 10:33:14 PM, Gentorev wrote:
Does John say that he ate the Passover meal with Jesus before he was crucified?

John who? Do you think you know who wrote the "Gospel of John"?

It was written by "the disciple whom Jesus loved" and is attributed by all early Christians to the apostle John.

it was written by "the disciple whom Jesus loved" around 90AD. this disciple wrote this stuff 60 years after Jesus (pbuh) death... yeah that makes sense to you?

I never said it was written in 90 AD or anywhere around 90 AD. To the contrary, I believe that the entire NT was written prior to AD 70.

oh wait so you reject scholarship?

I could hardly care less what "scholarshp" has to say on this or that when "scholarship" hasn't got a reason in the world to back it up. "Scholarship", remember, rejects inspiration in the first place, thus is better labeled "infidelic scholarship."

*sigh*

There is not one good reason to believe that John was written in AD 90 or thereabouts. There is no mention of the fall of Jerusalem at the hands of the Romans in AD 70 as an accomplished event in the entire Bible. Wonder why that is? To fool everybody?

Don't be foolish. If you were writing about the life and times of a Jesus character set at a particular time, and you wanted to create the impression you were a witness to it, would you give yourself away by revealing knowledge you couldn't possibly have given the setting? The only way you could do it is by couching it as a "prophecy' of some kind.

I'll take it that your answer is "yes". Is that the best you have to offer?

No more is needed. You wondered why the fall of Jerusalem is never mentioned and I gave you an excellent reason. Since you can't or won't dispute it, my job is done.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2014 3:21:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/7/2014 1:22:58 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/7/2014 1:03:55 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 12/6/2014 6:44:18 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/6/2014 7:47:10 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 12/6/2014 7:42:21 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 12/6/2014 7:37:50 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 12/6/2014 5:10:43 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 12/6/2014 1:55:41 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 12/5/2014 10:59:18 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/5/2014 10:33:14 PM, Gentorev wrote:
Does John say that he ate the Passover meal with Jesus before he was crucified?

John who? Do you think you know who wrote the "Gospel of John"?

It was written by "the disciple whom Jesus loved" and is attributed by all early Christians to the apostle John.

it was written by "the disciple whom Jesus loved" around 90AD. this disciple wrote this stuff 60 years after Jesus (pbuh) death... yeah that makes sense to you?

I never said it was written in 90 AD or anywhere around 90 AD. To the contrary, I believe that the entire NT was written prior to AD 70.

oh wait so you reject scholarship?

I could hardly care less what "scholarshp" has to say on this or that when "scholarship" hasn't got a reason in the world to back it up. "Scholarship", remember, rejects inspiration in the first place, thus is better labeled "infidelic scholarship."

*sigh*

There is not one good reason to believe that John was written in AD 90 or thereabouts. There is no mention of the fall of Jerusalem at the hands of the Romans in AD 70 as an accomplished event in the entire Bible. Wonder why that is? To fool everybody?

Don't be foolish. If you were writing about the life and times of a Jesus character set at a particular time, and you wanted to create the impression you were a witness to it, would you give yourself away by revealing knowledge you couldn't possibly have given the setting? The only way you could do it is by couching it as a "prophecy' of some kind.

I'll take it that your answer is "yes". Is that the best you have to offer?

No more is needed. You wondered why the fall of Jerusalem is never mentioned and I gave you an excellent reason. Since you can't or won't dispute it, my job is done.

I didn't dispute it because it is disputed so easily. If an event had not happened at the time, there is no reason to expect it to be mentioned as an accomplished event. Your unfounded guesses that the various authors of what is now the NT, in conjuction with the ones who later assimilated the books, all engaged in a conspiracy to "let's not mention the fall of Jerusalem, or else the ruse will be over" is a little to far-fetched for consideration.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2014 4:04:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/6/2014 7:47:10 AM, annanicole wrote:
There is not one good reason to believe that John was written in AD 90 or thereabouts. There is no mention of the fall of Jerusalem at the hands of the Romans in AD 70 as an accomplished event in the entire Bible. Wonder why that is? To fool everybody?
No Mention of Jerusalem"s Destruction
It is claimed that Revelation must have been penned before A.D. 70 since it has no allusion to the destruction of Jerusalem; rather, it is alleged, it represents both the city and the temple as still standing.

In response we note the following points.


Internal Evidence
The contents of the book of Revelation also suggest a late date, as the following observations indicate.

The spiritual conditions of the churches described in Revelation chapters two and three more readily harmonize with the late date.

The church in Ephesus, for instance, was not founded by Paul until the latter part of Claudius"s reign: and when he wrote to them from Rome, A.D. 61, instead of reproving them for any want of love, he commends their love and faith (Eph. 1:15) (Horne 1841, 382).

Yet, when Revelation was written, in spite of the fact that the Ephesians had been patient (2:2), they had also left their first love (v. 4), and this would seem to require a greater length of time than seven or eight years, as suggested by the early date.

Another internal evidence of a late date is that this book was penned while John was banished to Patmos (1:9). It is well known that Domitian had a fondness for this type of persecution. If, however, this persecution is dated in the time of Nero, how does one account for the fact that Peter and Paul are murdered, yet John is only exiled to an island? (Eusebius III.18; II.25).

Then consider this fact. The church at Laodicea is represented as existing under conditions of great wealth. She was rich and had need of nothing (3:17). In A.D. 60, though, Laodicea had been almost entirely destroyed by an earthquake. Surely it would have required more than eight or nine years for that city to have risen again to the state of affluence described in Revelation.

The doctrinal departures described in Revelation would appear to better fit the later dating. For example, the Nicolaitans (2:6, 15) were a full-fledged sect at the time of John"s writing, whereas they had only been hinted at in general terms in 2 Peter and Jude, which were written possibly around A.D. 65-66.

Persecution for professing the Christian faith is evidenced in those early letters to the seven churches of Asia Minor. For instance, Antipas had been killed in Pergamum (2:13). It is generally agreed among scholars, however, that Nero"s persecution was mostly confined to Rome; further, it was not for religious reasons (Harrison 1964, 446). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . First, if John wrote this work near A.D. 96, there would be little need to focus upon the destruction of Jerusalem since the lessons of that catastrophe would have been well learned in the preceding quarter of a century.

However, it must be noted that some scholars see a veiled reference to Jerusalem"s destruction in 11:8, where "the great city," in which the Savior was crucified (Jerusalem), is called Sodom"not merely because of wickedness, but due to the fact that it was a destroyed city of evil (Zahn 1973, 306).

Second, the contention that the literal city and temple were still standing, based upon chapter eleven, ignores the express symbolic nature of the narrative. Salmon says that it is:

" difficult to understand how anyone could have imagined that the vision represents the temple as still standing. For the whole scene is laid in heaven, and the temple that is measured is the heavenly temple (11:19; 15:5). We have only to compare this vision with the parallel vision of a measuring-reed seen by Ezekiel (ch. 40), in which the prophet is commanded to measure"surely not the city which it is stated had been demolished fourteen years previously, but the city of the future seen by the prophet in vision " (1904, 238). (Source: https://www.christiancourier.com...)
dee-em
Posts: 6,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2014 5:08:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/7/2014 3:21:51 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 12/7/2014 1:22:58 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/7/2014 1:03:55 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 12/6/2014 6:44:18 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/6/2014 7:47:10 AM, annanicole wrote:

I could hardly care less what "scholarshp" has to say on this or that when "scholarship" hasn't got a reason in the world to back it up. "Scholarship", remember, rejects inspiration in the first place, thus is better labeled "infidelic scholarship."

*sigh*

There is not one good reason to believe that John was written in AD 90 or thereabouts. There is no mention of the fall of Jerusalem at the hands of the Romans in AD 70 as an accomplished event in the entire Bible. Wonder why that is? To fool everybody?

Don't be foolish. If you were writing about the life and times of a Jesus character set at a particular time, and you wanted to create the impression you were a witness to it, would you give yourself away by revealing knowledge you couldn't possibly have given the setting? The only way you could do it is by couching it as a "prophecy' of some kind.

I'll take it that your answer is "yes". Is that the best you have to offer?

No more is needed. You wondered why the fall of Jerusalem is never mentioned and I gave you an excellent reason. Since you can't or won't dispute it, my job is done.

I didn't dispute it because it is disputed so easily. If an event had not happened at the time, there is no reason to expect it to be mentioned as an accomplished event. Your unfounded guesses that the various authors of what is now the NT, in conjuction with the ones who later assimilated the books, all engaged in a conspiracy to "let's not mention the fall of Jerusalem, or else the ruse will be over" is a little to far-fetched for consideration.

Please don't move the goalposts. You expressed disbelief in the notion that if the gospels had been written late, then why was there no mention of the fall of Jerusalem. I gave you a perfectly good reason. Now you want to argue the case (as you always do) for the gospels having been written early. I'm not interested in that switcheroo.

You are also putting words into my mouth by using the word "conspiracy". That is just plain dishonest. I never stated or implied that. My reason is far more than a guess. It only stands to reason that if you are writing a gospel on the life and times of your hero Jesus, then that is what you will focus on. In such an undertaking there is no opportunity or incentive to talk about any events long after his death. It wouldn't make any sense to their audience. The gospel writers were evangelizing Christianity. The fall of Jerusalem was mainly a Jewish/Judaic concern. No conspiracy theory is required.

You originally said:
"There is no mention of the fall of Jerusalem at the hands of the Romans in AD 70 as an accomplished event in the entire Bible. Wonder why that is? To fool everybody?"

Will you now concede that the lack of mention for the fall of Jerusalem is not a valid argument against a late date for the gospels?
Artur
Posts: 719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2014 5:43:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/6/2014 7:37:50 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 12/6/2014 5:10:43 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 12/6/2014 1:55:41 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 12/5/2014 10:59:18 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/5/2014 10:33:14 PM, Gentorev wrote:
Does John say that he ate the Passover meal with Jesus before he was crucified?

John who? Do you think you know who wrote the "Gospel of John"?

It was written by "the disciple whom Jesus loved" and is attributed by all early Christians to the apostle John.

it was written by "the disciple whom Jesus loved" around 90AD. this disciple wrote this stuff 60 years after Jesus (pbuh) death... yeah that makes sense to you?

I never said it was written in 90 AD or anywhere around 90 AD. To the contrary, I believe that the entire NT was written prior to AD 70.

very *great* logic. Now, I am going to write history of relations between Ukrain-rusiia, right now, on this day, 7/12/2014. If I write all events and Dont mention annexation of Crimea by russia, just because I did not mention annexation of crimea proves that the history written by Artur is not written on 7/12/14 but before March 2014.

Because annexation of Crime happened in march 2014 and Artur did not mention it, it is enough, undisputable proof for "Artur wrote that history before march 2014"

lmfao :D
"I'm not as soft or as generous a person as I would be if the world hadn't changed me" Bobby Fischer
Artur
Posts: 719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2014 5:45:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/6/2014 7:42:21 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 12/6/2014 7:37:50 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 12/6/2014 5:10:43 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 12/6/2014 1:55:41 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 12/5/2014 10:59:18 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/5/2014 10:33:14 PM, Gentorev wrote:
Does John say that he ate the Passover meal with Jesus before he was crucified?

John who? Do you think you know who wrote the "Gospel of John"?

It was written by "the disciple whom Jesus loved" and is attributed by all early Christians to the apostle John.

it was written by "the disciple whom Jesus loved" around 90AD. this disciple wrote this stuff 60 years after Jesus (pbuh) death... yeah that makes sense to you?

I never said it was written in 90 AD or anywhere around 90 AD. To the contrary, I believe that the entire NT was written prior to AD 70.

oh wait so you reject scholarship?

if you want to be a christian, you need very high level of ignorance and hypocrisy, if you have no that level of ignorance and hypocrisy, your logic will not let you be christian.
"I'm not as soft or as generous a person as I would be if the world hadn't changed me" Bobby Fischer
Artur
Posts: 719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2014 5:51:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/6/2014 7:47:10 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 12/6/2014 7:42:21 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 12/6/2014 7:37:50 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 12/6/2014 5:10:43 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 12/6/2014 1:55:41 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 12/5/2014 10:59:18 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/5/2014 10:33:14 PM, Gentorev wrote:
Does John say that he ate the Passover meal with Jesus before he was crucified?

John who? Do you think you know who wrote the "Gospel of John"?

It was written by "the disciple whom Jesus loved" and is attributed by all early Christians to the apostle John.

it was written by "the disciple whom Jesus loved" around 90AD. this disciple wrote this stuff 60 years after Jesus (pbuh) death... yeah that makes sense to you?

I never said it was written in 90 AD or anywhere around 90 AD. To the contrary, I believe that the entire NT was written prior to AD 70.

oh wait so you reject scholarship?

I could hardly care less what "scholarshp" has to say on this or that when "scholarship" hasn't got a reason in the world to back it up.
So, what do you have to back the NT was written before 70 AD up?
"Scholarship", remember, rejects inspiration in the first place
if I write a such pornographic and absurd book and claim to be inspired to write it and you do not accept it, then you are rejecting the *inspiration* great logic.
thus is better labeled "infidelic scholarship."
so, you or anybody who does not accept the book I write, then that is infidelic. Great logic.

There is not one good reason to believe that John was written in AD 90 or thereabouts.
If that is the point, There is no one reason to believe that Jesus and they existed. There is no any trace to believe in NT was written before 70 and it was inspired by God.
There is no mention of the fall of Jerusalem at the hands of the Romans in AD 70 as an accomplished event in the entire Bible.
The same example I gave on my previous post applies to this. Now, I am going to write history of relations between Ukrain-rusiia, right now, on this day, 7/12/2014. If I write all events and Dont mention annexation of Crimea by russia, just because I did not mention annexation of crimea proves that the history written by Artur is not written on 7/12/14 but before March 2014.

Because annexation of Crime happened in march 2014 and Artur did not mention it, it is enough, undisputable proof for "Artur wrote that history before march 2014"

lmfao :D
Wonder why that is? To fool everybody?
Wonder why that was? Artur wanted to fool everybody when he wrote relations between ukraine-russia?
You christians are so funny, not only christians, almost every religion believer I know.
"I'm not as soft or as generous a person as I would be if the world hadn't changed me" Bobby Fischer
dee-em
Posts: 6,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2014 5:57:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/7/2014 5:43:33 AM, Artur wrote:
At 12/6/2014 7:37:50 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 12/6/2014 5:10:43 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 12/6/2014 1:55:41 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 12/5/2014 10:59:18 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/5/2014 10:33:14 PM, Gentorev wrote:
Does John say that he ate the Passover meal with Jesus before he was crucified?

John who? Do you think you know who wrote the "Gospel of John"?

It was written by "the disciple whom Jesus loved" and is attributed by all early Christians to the apostle John.

it was written by "the disciple whom Jesus loved" around 90AD. this disciple wrote this stuff 60 years after Jesus (pbuh) death... yeah that makes sense to you?

I never said it was written in 90 AD or anywhere around 90 AD. To the contrary, I believe that the entire NT was written prior to AD 70.

very *great* logic. Now, I am going to write history of relations between Ukrain-rusiia, right now, on this day, 7/12/2014. If I write all events and Dont mention annexation of Crimea by russia, just because I did not mention annexation of crimea proves that the history written by Artur is not written on 7/12/14 but before March 2014.

Because annexation of Crime happened in march 2014 and Artur did not mention it, it is enough, undisputable proof for "Artur wrote that history before march 2014"

Hm. It wouldn't be indisputable proof but, in the absence of any other indicators, a strong case could be made since the annexation of Crimea would be expected to be included in any book on the history of relations between Russia and the Ukraine.

A better analogy might be if you were writing a biography of Boris Yeltsin who died in 2007.
Artur
Posts: 719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2014 6:38:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/7/2014 5:57:51 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/7/2014 5:43:33 AM, Artur wrote:
At 12/6/2014 7:37:50 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 12/6/2014 5:10:43 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 12/6/2014 1:55:41 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 12/5/2014 10:59:18 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/5/2014 10:33:14 PM, Gentorev wrote:
Does John say that he ate the Passover meal with Jesus before he was crucified?

John who? Do you think you know who wrote the "Gospel of John"?

It was written by "the disciple whom Jesus loved" and is attributed by all early Christians to the apostle John.

it was written by "the disciple whom Jesus loved" around 90AD. this disciple wrote this stuff 60 years after Jesus (pbuh) death... yeah that makes sense to you?

I never said it was written in 90 AD or anywhere around 90 AD. To the contrary, I believe that the entire NT was written prior to AD 70.

very *great* logic. Now, I am going to write history of relations between Ukrain-rusiia, right now, on this day, 7/12/2014. If I write all events and Dont mention annexation of Crimea by russia, just because I did not mention annexation of crimea proves that the history written by Artur is not written on 7/12/14 but before March 2014.

Because annexation of Crime happened in march 2014 and Artur did not mention it, it is enough, undisputable proof for "Artur wrote that history before march 2014"

Hm. It wouldn't be indisputable proof but, in the absence of any other indicators, a strong case could be made since the annexation of Crimea would be expected to be included in any book on the history of relations between Russia and the Ukraine.

A better analogy might be if you were writing a biography of Boris Yeltsin who died in 2007.

so, it shows that "just because unknown author of "the gospell which is claimed to be written by John"" did not mention the event which took place in 70 A.D is not undisputable proof nor it gives us something to conclude that it is written before that unmentioned event.

That is just prediction, opinion, assumption, that is all. Stop saying "that gospel is written before 70 A.D because it does not mention the event which took place in 70 A.D" that is not a proof nor an arguement.

Vice versa, unmentioned annexation of crimea shows us that I did not write that history on december 2014, it shows it is written before march 2014:
"I'm not as soft or as generous a person as I would be if the world hadn't changed me" Bobby Fischer
dee-em
Posts: 6,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2014 7:21:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/7/2014 6:38:48 AM, Artur wrote:
At 12/7/2014 5:57:51 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/7/2014 5:43:33 AM, Artur wrote:
At 12/6/2014 7:37:50 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 12/6/2014 5:10:43 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 12/6/2014 1:55:41 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 12/5/2014 10:59:18 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/5/2014 10:33:14 PM, Gentorev wrote:
Does John say that he ate the Passover meal with Jesus before he was crucified?

John who? Do you think you know who wrote the "Gospel of John"?

It was written by "the disciple whom Jesus loved" and is attributed by all early Christians to the apostle John.

it was written by "the disciple whom Jesus loved" around 90AD. this disciple wrote this stuff 60 years after Jesus (pbuh) death... yeah that makes sense to you?

I never said it was written in 90 AD or anywhere around 90 AD. To the contrary, I believe that the entire NT was written prior to AD 70.

very *great* logic. Now, I am going to write history of relations between Ukrain-rusiia, right now, on this day, 7/12/2014. If I write all events and Dont mention annexation of Crimea by russia, just because I did not mention annexation of crimea proves that the history written by Artur is not written on 7/12/14 but before March 2014.

Because annexation of Crime happened in march 2014 and Artur did not mention it, it is enough, undisputable proof for "Artur wrote that history before march 2014"

Hm. It wouldn't be indisputable proof but, in the absence of any other indicators, a strong case could be made since the annexation of Crimea would be expected to be included in any book on the history of relations between Russia and the Ukraine.

A better analogy might be if you were writing a biography of Boris Yeltsin who died in 2007.

so, it shows that "just because unknown author of "the gospell which is claimed to be written by John"" did not mention the event which took place in 70 A.D is not undisputable proof nor it gives us something to conclude that it is written before that unmentioned event.

Correct (I think).

That is just prediction, opinion, assumption, that is all. Stop saying "that gospel is written before 70 A.D because it does not mention the event which took place in 70 A.D" that is not a proof nor an arguement.

You're confusing me with someone else. That is not my view.

Vice versa, unmentioned annexation of crimea shows us that I did not write that history on december 2014, it shows it is written before march 2014

But this is the opposite of what you said earlier.
???
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2014 8:15:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/7/2014 5:43:33 AM, Artur wrote:
At 12/6/2014 7:37:50 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 12/6/2014 5:10:43 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 12/6/2014 1:55:41 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 12/5/2014 10:59:18 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/5/2014 10:33:14 PM, Gentorev wrote:
Does John say that he ate the Passover meal with Jesus before he was crucified?

John who? Do you think you know who wrote the "Gospel of John"?

It was written by "the disciple whom Jesus loved" and is attributed by all early Christians to the apostle John.

it was written by "the disciple whom Jesus loved" around 90AD. this disciple wrote this stuff 60 years after Jesus (pbuh) death... yeah that makes sense to you?

I never said it was written in 90 AD or anywhere around 90 AD. To the contrary, I believe that the entire NT was written prior to AD 70.

very *great* logic. Now, I am going to write history of relations between Ukrain-rusiia, right now, on this day, 7/12/2014. If I write all events and Dont mention annexation of Crimea by russia, just because I did not mention annexation of crimea proves that the history written by Artur is not written on 7/12/14 but before March 2014.

Because annexation of Crime happened in march 2014 and Artur did not mention it, it is enough, undisputable proof for "Artur wrote that history before march 2014"

lmfao :D

Artur, you tread a thin line of being just too stupid to post on here.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2014 8:21:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/7/2014 5:08:00 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/7/2014 3:21:51 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 12/7/2014 1:22:58 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/7/2014 1:03:55 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 12/6/2014 6:44:18 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/6/2014 7:47:10 AM, annanicole wrote:

I could hardly care less what "scholarshp" has to say on this or that when "scholarship" hasn't got a reason in the world to back it up. "Scholarship", remember, rejects inspiration in the first place, thus is better labeled "infidelic scholarship."

*sigh*

There is not one good reason to believe that John was written in AD 90 or thereabouts. There is no mention of the fall of Jerusalem at the hands of the Romans in AD 70 as an accomplished event in the entire Bible. Wonder why that is? To fool everybody?

Don't be foolish. If you were writing about the life and times of a Jesus character set at a particular time, and you wanted to create the impression you were a witness to it, would you give yourself away by revealing knowledge you couldn't possibly have given the setting? The only way you could do it is by couching it as a "prophecy' of some kind.

I'll take it that your answer is "yes". Is that the best you have to offer?

No more is needed. You wondered why the fall of Jerusalem is never mentioned and I gave you an excellent reason. Since you can't or won't dispute it, my job is done.

I didn't dispute it because it is disputed so easily. If an event had not happened at the time, there is no reason to expect it to be mentioned as an accomplished event. Your unfounded guesses that the various authors of what is now the NT, in conjuction with the ones who later assimilated the books, all engaged in a conspiracy to "let's not mention the fall of Jerusalem, or else the ruse will be over" is a little to far-fetched for consideration.

Please don't move the goalposts. You expressed disbelief in the notion that if the gospels had been written late, then why was there no mention of the fall of Jerusalem. I gave you a perfectly good reason.

Your reason is: everyone colluded in order to deceive. That's hardly even reasonable, much less a "perfectly good reason."


You are also putting words into my mouth by using the word "conspiracy". That is just plain dishonest. I never stated or implied that. My reason is far more than a guess. It only stands to reason that if you are writing a gospel on the life and times of your hero Jesus, then that is what you will focus on.

I said "entire NT" - not just the gospel accounts


You originally said:
"There is no mention of the fall of Jerusalem at the hands of the Romans in AD 70 as an accomplished event in the entire Bible. Wonder why that is? To fool everybody?"

Will you now concede that the lack of mention for the fall of Jerusalem is not a valid argument against a late date for the gospels?

It is not a conclusive reason: it is suggestive - and it is reasonable.

Will you concede that your little theory implies that all of the NT writers as well as possibly those who collected the books all conspired to exclude the fall of Jerusalem simply to deceive people into thinking that the books were written earlier?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
dee-em
Posts: 6,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2014 8:34:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/7/2014 8:21:30 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 12/7/2014 5:08:00 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/7/2014 3:21:51 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 12/7/2014 1:22:58 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/7/2014 1:03:55 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 12/6/2014 6:44:18 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/6/2014 7:47:10 AM, annanicole wrote:

I could hardly care less what "scholarshp" has to say on this or that when "scholarship" hasn't got a reason in the world to back it up. "Scholarship", remember, rejects inspiration in the first place, thus is better labeled "infidelic scholarship."

*sigh*

There is not one good reason to believe that John was written in AD 90 or thereabouts. There is no mention of the fall of Jerusalem at the hands of the Romans in AD 70 as an accomplished event in the entire Bible. Wonder why that is? To fool everybody?

Don't be foolish. If you were writing about the life and times of a Jesus character set at a particular time, and you wanted to create the impression you were a witness to it, would you give yourself away by revealing knowledge you couldn't possibly have given the setting? The only way you could do it is by couching it as a "prophecy' of some kind.

I'll take it that your answer is "yes". Is that the best you have to offer?

No more is needed. You wondered why the fall of Jerusalem is never mentioned and I gave you an excellent reason. Since you can't or won't dispute it, my job is done.

I didn't dispute it because it is disputed so easily. If an event had not happened at the time, there is no reason to expect it to be mentioned as an accomplished event. Your unfounded guesses that the various authors of what is now the NT, in conjuction with the ones who later assimilated the books, all engaged in a conspiracy to "let's not mention the fall of Jerusalem, or else the ruse will be over" is a little to far-fetched for consideration.

Please don't move the goalposts. You expressed disbelief in the notion that if the gospels had been written late, then why was there no mention of the fall of Jerusalem. I gave you a perfectly good reason.

Your reason is: everyone colluded in order to deceive. That's hardly even reasonable, much less a "perfectly good reason."

That's not what I said at all. Stop lying.

You are also putting words into my mouth by using the word "conspiracy". That is just plain dishonest. I never stated or implied that. My reason is far more than a guess. It only stands to reason that if you are writing a gospel on the life and times of your hero Jesus, then that is what you will focus on.

I said "entire NT" - not just the gospel accounts

So what? The same reasoning applies.


You originally said:
"There is no mention of the fall of Jerusalem at the hands of the Romans in AD 70 as an accomplished event in the entire Bible. Wonder why that is? To fool everybody?"

Will you now concede that the lack of mention for the fall of Jerusalem is not a valid argument against a late date for the gospels?

It is not a conclusive reason: it is suggestive - and it is reasonable.

Good.

Will you concede that your little theory implies that all of the NT writers as well as possibly those who collected the books all conspired to exclude the fall of Jerusalem simply to deceive people into thinking that the books were written earlier?

Haven't I already answered this in post #21? Stop putting words in my mouth. Try reading my actual words, not what you wish I had said so you have something to attack. I mean really, you are being preposterous.