Question to all Christians here: (2 views) Subscribe   
  From:  Natureboy (Vamp_Rob)   7/3/2001 3:01 pm  
To:  ALL   (1 of 80)  
 
  102.1  
 
Is God perfect? 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
3.0 (3 votes) 
  
    
 


  From:  StevenJn316   7/3/2001 3:08 pm  
To:  Natureboy (Vamp_Rob)   (2 of 80)  
 
  102.2 in reply to 102.1  
 
Rob, in the spirit of discussion (wink) would you please define your term - perfect. In what sense or context do you mean? 
My Webster's dictionary has 12 definitions of the word.... 

Thanks
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   7/3/2001 3:19 pm  
To:  StevenJn316   (3 of 80)  
 
  102.3 in reply to 102.2  
 
...in the spirit of discussion (wink) would you please define your term - perfect. In what sense or context do you mean? 
Oh, I thought you were referring to defining the OTHER "undefined" term - god.

*wink*






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
5.0 (1 vote) 
  
    
 


  From:  Natureboy (Vamp_Rob)   7/3/2001 3:47 pm  
To:  StevenJn316   (4 of 80)  
 
  102.4 in reply to 102.2  
 
yeah, you see, that was my point .... 
The Bible says God is perfect and most Christian say God is perfect, but that's not consistent because 'perfect'like beauty and good and evil is in the eye of the beholder.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
3.0 (2 votes) 
  
    
 


  From:  StevenJn316   7/3/2001 10:35 pm  
To:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   (5 of 80)  
 
  102.5 in reply to 102.3  
 
Excellent point! We do need to define god as well, since god is not a name. 
Dr. Stephen Hawking, often called the most intelligent man alive today, defines god as the composition of the laws of the universe. 

Sting, the musician, defined god as the inner being within man that is capable of artistic and creative ability. 

But the context of the question (to the Christians here) implied for me the poster meant the god of the Bible.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  StevenJn316   7/3/2001 10:41 pm  
To:  Natureboy (Vamp_Rob)   (6 of 80)  
 
  102.6 in reply to 102.4  
 
I disagree there, perfect is defined by the context, unlike the other examples you gave such as good. 
If I say my son got a good score on his test, that phrase is meaningless to you since you do not know what good for my son would be. To some a good score is a 75%, to others 90% etc. 

But if I say he got a perfect score, he only could have a 100%. 

Likewise in baseball, a pitcher throws a perfect game, by definition that means not one baserunner got on. But a good game could mean anything based on the relative ability of the pitcher. 

We could go on and on with examples like this, but perfect is not a relative term at all - just a term needing a context, which is why I asked my question.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Natureboy (Vamp_Rob)   7/4/2001 3:40 am  
To:  StevenJn316   (7 of 80)  
 
  102.7 in reply to 102.6  
 
wrong type of perfect. I mean like in the the perfect woman. I mean you already have problem there because not all men have a perfect WOman, and a lot of women don't either and then again some do and what about the perfect society? each has his own opinion of perfection. 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  LOVEALOT2   7/4/2001 2:55 pm  
To:  ALL   (8 of 80)  
 
  102.8 in reply to 102.4  
 
I just wanted to say regardless if you think GOD is perfect or not He loves you very much and wants to be in your life! If you ask him he can change your life( and eternity) forever!! GOD bless each and everyone of you! 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  StevenJn316   7/4/2001 11:25 pm  
To:  Natureboy (Vamp_Rob)   (9 of 80)  
 
  102.9 in reply to 102.7  
 
OK, yeah those are also ways we use the word which fall into the subjective category. 
SO back to your question, is God perfect. Are you saying do we Christians have the "perfect God" (like your perfect wife)? 

Is that your question?? If so it seems the real issue is if Christianity is the perfect faith, in other words does the Christian God do something for you better than other gods of religion.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  StevenJn316   7/4/2001 11:36 pm  
To:  Natureboy (Vamp_Rob)   (10 of 80)  
 
  102.10 in reply to 102.7  
 
<each has his own opinion of perfection.> 
I meant to comment on that too, again it depends on context. 

By definition there are some things that ALL agree on for defining perfect, like a perfect game in baseball I mentioned earlier. Unless one is just wanting to argue, you have to agree on what constitutes a perfect game in baseball. 

Your examples though allow for personal opinion. I wonder though if sometimes we do not use words improperly, so as to make meaningless statements since the phrase is so subjective. 

That was the perfect meal. What on earth does that mean? Am I not being a poor speaker if I am really trying to express a thought using my chosen words. I should pick a word or sentence which matches what I am speaking of...was it a well-balanced meal, delicious meal, the exact quantity so none wasted or none wanted, etc... 

So if a guy spoke to me about a perfect woman or society, though I grant your point that phrase is often used, I would have to inquire what he meant - is it the woman's looks, personality, intelligence, her occupation, her prior marital status, kids or not etc. or any combo therein. 

I do not wish to be tedious but I think using words improperly and giving them new usages is a problem today. Especially in bulletin boards where language is our only medium here, no body language, voice inflections and the like available. 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Natureboy (Vamp_Rob)   7/5/2001 2:08 am  
To:  StevenJn316   (11 of 80)  
 
  102.11 in reply to 102.10  
 
I have to admit, I was actually hoping to get a "yes God is perfect" from the less thinking members here so I could comment on the subjectiveness of the term. It's good you're not as mindless as most christians.

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   7/5/2001 5:47 am  
To:  StevenJn316   (12 of 80)  
 
  102.12 in reply to 102.5  
 
Dr. Stephen Hawking, often called the most intelligent man alive today, defines god as the composition of the laws of the universe. 
I can agree with an assumption like this. I am not, after all, an atheist. (And Steven Hawking is not even CLOSE to being the most intelligent man alive, he is just a very intelligent person who has a LOT of time to use his brain to ponder things.)

Sting, the musician, defined god as the inner being within man that is capable of artistic and creative ability. 

Sting is just a mental locknut.

But the context of the question (to the Christians here) implied for me the poster meant the god of the Bible. 

Which is still "undefined" - which was kinda my point. (Describing something as "all-knowing and all-powerful" is a non-description. It is like describing "something" as "everything" - you get "nothing".)






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Natureboy (Vamp_Rob)   7/5/2001 6:36 am  
To:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   (13 of 80)  
 
  102.13 in reply to 102.12  
 
oi watch it, don't talk that way about anyone who starred in Dune.

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   7/5/2001 7:03 am  
To:  Natureboy (Vamp_Rob)   (14 of 80)  
 
  102.14 in reply to 102.13  
 
Yeah, but he played Feyd Rautha, a Harkonnen, so even the character he played was a mental locknut. 
But all reverence to the other cast members, of course...






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Dr_Shock   7/5/2001 11:19 am  
To:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   (15 of 80)  
 
  102.15 in reply to 102.12  
 
<<<I can agree with an assumption like this. I am not, after all, an atheist. (And Steven Hawking is not even CLOSE to being the most intelligent man alive, he is just a very intelligent person who has a LOT of time to use his brain to ponder things.)>>> 
Thank you for being one of the few individuals in the American public to realize this. Hawking keeps changeing his mind about everything with the ebb and flow of the scientific mainstream. Some of his opinion changes are so drastic that I have to wonder if he thinks for himself half the time. I see Hawking as the guy who the physics community throws out into the open once every 10 or so years to gain undergrads and research money. Hawking has written some real neat books but really hasn't contributed a great deal to the advancement of science unlike others who are alive today. 



-The Mad Dr. Shock
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   7/5/2001 11:53 am  
To:  Dr_Shock   (16 of 80)  
 
  102.16 in reply to 102.15  
 
It's funny because I think most of the consensus about Hawking is that he is just "sooooo intelligent" because it is trendy within [pseudo]-intellectual circles to SAY just that (as if giving recognition to a universally accepted genius somehow EQUATES one with said genius), then quote off a couple well-known titles that he authored. But if a person had actually READ any of his work, you could easily see it as a compilation of other greater, but lesser-known, scientists.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Dr_Shock   7/5/2001 12:01 pm  
To:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   (17 of 80)  
 
  102.17 in reply to 102.16  
 
So do you think the same way I do; That Hawking is mostly just a big theif? You do realize that admitting such puts us in the minority. =)


-The Mad Dr. Shock 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   7/5/2001 12:03 pm  
To:  Dr_Shock   (18 of 80)  
 
  102.18 in reply to 102.17  
 
You do realize that admitting such puts us in the minority. 
Yeah, but being in the minority doesn't necessarily mean being in the wrong; but I am used to it anyways. After all, I'm surrounded by christians.

;0)






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  R/C Floats (RachelsChild)   7/5/2001 12:17 pm  
To:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   (19 of 80)  
 
  102.19 in reply to 102.16  
 
Hi Seabren... 
Have nothing against Hawkings per se but I track with you about the "trendiness" aspect of intellectualism and my how trends/thoughts come and go. 
Personally, I like what Solomon said in Ecclesiastes: "there is nothing new under the sun." Wise man. Still lots to be discovered but it is already there to begin with. 
regards, 
R/C  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


   From:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   7/5/2001 2:53 pm  
To:  R/C Floats (RachelsChild)   (20 of 80)  
 
  102.20 in reply to 102.19  
 
"there is nothing new under the sun." Wise man. Still lots to be discovered but it is already there to begin with. 
That is true for physical things and phenomena. But I don't think it is true for ideas, systems and culture.

For example, when the idea of a Democratic government was formed and then put into practice, it was the FIRST time that it had been done "under our sun". No one just happened along a tribe of monkees that had been doing it already.






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit  
 
From:  R/C Floats (RachelsChild)   7/5/2001 3:35 pm  
To:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   (21 of 80)  
 
  102.21 in reply to 102.20  
 
Hi: 
I agree that formed, practiced, democratic government is *new* but I would argue all mankind has had the desire to be free, just didn't have the means to do it. ;o) 
R/C  
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  StevenJn316   7/5/2001 3:49 pm  
To:  R/C Floats (RachelsChild)   (22 of 80)  
 
  102.22 in reply to 102.21  
 
Well said, and of course our democratic government had its basis as being rooted in LAW. A democracy can only exist if the majority of its citizens are volunatrily law abiding. 
And those laws on which our nation was founded were rooted in England's common law.... 

The 'nothing is new' line is meant in the general as I am sure you agree...
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  StevenJn316   7/5/2001 3:51 pm  
To:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   (23 of 80)  
 
  102.23 in reply to 102.12  
 
For the record, I do not think Hawking is the smartest man alive..just said many people say that.... 
As to still being undefined....the God of the Bible is very clearly revealed as to his character, methods, purposes etc. Not just the omnipotent, omniscient issue...
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  R/C Floats (RachelsChild)   7/5/2001 4:55 pm  
To:  StevenJn316   (24 of 80)  
 
  102.24 in reply to 102.22  
 
Hi Steve, 
Have to be honest, I don't really get into things political with a passion. I don't agree with any "under the boot" form of government. I believe all endeavors of government, by their very human nature, are flawed to one degree or another. 
Conceptually, I really do believe there is, "nothing new under the sun". I hold to the persuasion that man was fully equipped at creation, to discover/learn/participate in all things God created BUT the ability to do that became hindered/hampered/distorted/retarded, by, "the fall"...sin. 

Regards, 
R/C 
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   7/6/2001 5:11 am  
To:  StevenJn316   (25 of 80)  
 
  102.25 in reply to 102.23  
 
the God of the Bible is very clearly revealed as to his character, methods, purposes etc. 
Then why do so many Christian DISAGREE as to what, exactly, the character and methods of god ARE? And even the bible says that man should not and cannot guess what god's purpose is.

(Suggestion: give up on this one and call it a day. The character of god is just an opinion and will never be agreed upon precisely BECAUSE of the different depictions and quotes in the bible. Indeed, if one were to read the Old and New testaments separately, one would have to conclude that the gods described in either one were VERY different in character.)






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    7/6/2001 8:46 am  
To:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   (26 of 80)  
 
  102.26 in reply to 102.25  
 

Old Testament 
Malachi 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not; 
New Testament 
Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the Same yesterday, and today, and forever. 

Old Testament God: 
Life  Psalm 42:8 .. unto the God of my Life. 
Love  Malachi 1:2 For I have Loved you saith the, LORD. 
Faithfulness  Deuteronomy 7:9 .. the LORD thy God, He is God, the Faithful God 
Grace  Psalm 86:15 .. God, full of Compassion, and Gracious, 
Mercy - Psalm 25:10 All of the paths of the LORD are Mercy and Truth. 
Receives Worship  Genesis 24:26 and (he) Worshiped the LORD 
Judges  Ecclesiastes 3:17 .. God, shall Judge the righteous and the wicked: 
Rules  Daniel 4:3 His Kingdom is an everlasting Kingdom 
Forgives sin  Psalm 99:8 O LORD our God: Thou was a God that Forgavest them (sinners) 

New Testament God: 
Life  Colossians 3:4 .. Christ, who is our Life 
Love  1 John 4:8 .. for God is Love. 
Faithfulness  2 Thessalonians 3:3 .. the Lord is Faithful, who shall establish you, and keep you from evil. 
Grace  1Peter 5:10 .. the God of all Grace 
Mercy  Ephesians 4:4 .. God, who is rich in Mercy, for His great Love 
Receives Worship  John 9:38 And he said, Lord (Jesus), I believe. And he worshiped Him (Jesus). 
Judges  John 5:30 - .. as I (Jesus) hear I Judge: and My Judgment is just 
Romans 2:16 God shall Judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ 
Rules  Revelation 1:9 the Kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ 
Forgives sin - mark 2:9 Jesus .. said .. son thy sins be forgiven thee 

**These are just a few of the Many, Many passages About God in the Old and New Testament. 





David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Dr_Shock   7/6/2001 9:48 am  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (27 of 80)  
 
  102.27 in reply to 102.26  
 
<<<Old Testament 
Malachi 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not; 
New Testament 
Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the Same yesterday, and today, and forever.>>> 

Then why the staggering differences between the Old Testament God and the New Testament God? And I'm not just talking authorship. In the Old Testament, he likes to burn towns, accept sacrifices and test people in nasty ways. In the New Testament, he's all about love and light. What about "Vengance is mine, sayeth the Lord"? 

What gives? 


-The Mad Dr. Shock
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   7/6/2001 10:23 am  
To:  Dr_Shock   (28 of 80)  
 
  102.28 in reply to 102.27  
 
The book of Revelation is a book of God's judgement/vengence on the earth. 
Romans 12:19 quotes Deut 32:35 gives God the right of vengence in NT times. However, He reserves the right for Himself, not for us. 

God has judged sin and punished it in the past, and He did in the NT as well (Annias and Saphira come to mind). 

The ultimate sacrifice that God wants was provided through His Son Jesus. Because of that animal sacrifice is no longer necessary, but the primary purpose of animal sacrifice was the blood atonement for sin. Jesus provides that, and it is sufficient. 

David gave adequate verses showing God's love in the OT. 

God's blessings 
Scott
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   7/6/2001 10:37 am  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (29 of 80)  
 
  102.29 in reply to 102.26  
 
This, however, does nothing to refute the claim. All you have done is provide more fuel for contradiction.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Dr_Shock   7/6/2001 3:31 pm  
To:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   (30 of 80)  
 
  102.30 in reply to 102.28  
 
I hope you realize that the Book of Revlation was written by a Jewish defector to Rome in the 500's on an isle in the Mediterranean. From a anthropological psychologist's standpoint, the book wasn't even written by a sane man. 
<<<Because of that animal sacrifice is no longer necessary, but the primary purpose of animal sacrifice was the blood atonement for sin. Jesus provides that, and it is sufficient.>>> 

So you at least admit that Christians used to participate in the sacrifice of living creatures? 

<<<David gave adequate verses showing God's love in the OT.>>> 

David, as usual, only gave half the story. He completely ignored all the acts of destruction committed by God in the Old Testament. In the Old Testament, God kill people with no other reason than "It made God mad". Sodom and Gamora come to mind, since modern researchers say that those who lived in these two sister towns took better care of their people than any other known civilization in the Middle East at the time. In fact, they were one of the few places in the Middle East where women and children were given proper burial instead of being thrown into mass grave sites.... However, it is also known that these people weren't Jewish.


-The Mad Dr. Shock
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  StevenJn316   7/6/2001 3:40 pm  
To:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   (31 of 80)  
 
  102.31 in reply to 102.25  
 
The Old Testament is filled with passages about God being merciful and loving and gracious. The New Testament is filled with passages of God being righteous and bringing judgment to the wicked. 
The idea that there is two different gods being described in the testaments is rather odd to me, given the entirety of Scripture.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   7/6/2001 3:46 pm  
To:  Dr_Shock   (32 of 80)  
 
  102.32 in reply to 102.30  
 
My post was simply an answer to your contention that the God of the OT seem different from the God of the NT. You specifically mentioned vengence and God's destruction of people. I pointed out that they also occurred in the NT. 
As to when Revelations was written, given the evidence I have read, I tend to believe it was written in 90-100A.D. time frame by the aged John the Apostle. 

I also do not admit to Christians using sacrifice of living creatures. I do believe the Bible calls me to be a living sacrifice (Romans 12:1) as a responce to Christ's death. At Christ's death, no other sacrifices are necessary. Have some who claim to be Christians also been involved in sacrifices? ... I don't know, but it is possible. Not all things that Christians do conform to what the Bible teaches, sadly. 

I did not say that David gave the whole story of the charactor of God, what I said is that he showed adequate proof of God's love referenced in both OT and NT. 

As to Sodom and Gomorrah... 
1) At the time of their destruction, there were not Jews, nor were there any children of Jacob. All there was, was a man chosen by God to raise a people (Abraham). 
2) The story of their destruction speaks of the type of people they were. 

God's blessings 
Scott 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Dr_Shock   7/6/2001 9:06 pm  
To:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   (33 of 80)  
 
  102.33 in reply to 102.32  
 
Thankyou for clarifying a few points about what you were saying. I must admit, I jumped the gun on a few things.


-The Mad Dr. Shock 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


Message 34 of 80 was Deleted    



  From:  Al Kupone (Kupone)   7/6/2001 11:02 pm  
To:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   (35 of 80)  
 
  102.35 in reply to 102.32  
 
As to when Revelations was written, given the evidence I have read, I tend to believe it was written in 90-100A.D. time frame 
by the aged John the Apostle. 
-=-=-=-=-=-=- 

Wow, John must have been ancient considering the average life span of the day! 

Al Kupone 

(This post was deleted once by David already!)
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    7/6/2001 11:08 pm  
To:  Al Kupone (Kupone)   (36 of 80)  
 
  102.36 in reply to 102.35  
 
No, not this post as you have posed it. I deleted your previous post because of an irreverent phrase. 
Thank you for editing your own post, before you posted it again. 





David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited 7/7/01 2:11:55 AM ET by DAVIDABROWN 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   7/7/2001 7:36 am  
To:  Al Kupone (Kupone)   (37 of 80)  
 
  102.37 in reply to 102.35  
 
Since there is no record of John's birthdate, no knowledge of his exact age can be known. However, since we know he was a disciple of Jesus, and accepting that Jesus' ministry was in the A.D 30's, yes, he was very old. Guessing that if John was say 20 in A.D. 30, then he would have been in his 90's at the time of writing. 
But then our average life expectancy is around 70-75 now, and yet there are reports of people living into the early 100+teens. Is it not possible for John to be an exception to the average life expectancy? 

God's blessings 
Scott
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    7/7/2001 7:54 am  
To:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   (38 of 80)  
 
  102.38 in reply to 102.37  
 
Yeah, 
Of course it is Possible, Probable, Likely, even Evident that the Disciple John Lived to be aprox. 100 years old. 

He is really reaching on this one. I think he is trying to say that Revelation was written in 500 A.D.. Even though Poly Carp a Disciple of John the Disciple of Jesus was living and writing UNTIL HIS DEATH BY Martyrdom In 156 A.D.. 

*Early Church History Timeline 
http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/timechu1.stm 

Welcome to the Forum and Thanks for the Excellent Postings!!! 

Your Brother in Jesus Christ, 
David 





David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   7/7/2001 8:28 am  
To:  David (DavidABrown)    (39 of 80)  
 
  102.39 in reply to 102.38  
 
David, 
To Al's credit, he only stated that if John wrote Revelation in the A.D. 90's then he was an ancient man. By lifespans of that time, he was. However, there are people you live much longer then typical life spans today as well. 

The comment about Revelation being written in the 500's is from Dr Shock. Unless they are the same people, I will attempt to keep them seperate when talking to them. 

God's blessings 
Scott
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


   From:  Dr_Shock   7/7/2001 10:57 am  
To:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   (40 of 80)  
 
  102.40 in reply to 102.39  
 
Taken from http://encarta.msn.com/find/Concise.asp?ti=04B65000 
Revelation (book of Bible), last book of the 
New Testament. It is rich in allegory and 
continues to be the subject of widely 
divergent interpretations. The book is 
sometimes called the Apocalypse. Both 
English titles are derived from the first word 
in the Greek original, apokalypsis (revelation). 

II. Authorship 

Print section 

The author of Revelation calls himself John, 
and ecclesiastical tradition has held Saint 
John the Evangelist to be the author. 
However, in view of such evidence as the 
linguistic differences between Revelation and 
the Gospel of John, also traditionally ascribed 
to John the Evangelist, many scholars have 
been inclined to attribute Revelation to some 
other prominent early Christian writer. They 
suggest, for instance, Saint Mark or John the 
Elder. The place of composition is generally 
supposed to have been the island of Ptmos, 
one of the Dodecanese islands in the Aegean 
Sea, to which the author had been banished 
"on account of the word of God and the 
testimony of Jesus" (1:9). There, perhaps in 
the reign of Roman emperor Vespasian, from 
69 to 79, but most probably in the reign of 
Roman emperor Domitian, from 81 to 96, "a 
loud voice like a trumpet" reportedly was 
heard by the author saying "write what you 
see in a book and send it to the seven 
churches, to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to 
Pergamum and to Thyatira and to Sardis and 
to Philadelphia and to Laodicea" (1:10-11). 

Revelation was written to prepare the church 
for the last intervention of God in human 
affairs. The Christians of the 1st century 
believed this event to be close at hand. 
When it occurred, a new age of the world 
would begin, in which Christ and the church 
would be triumphant. Meanwhile, however, 
the evils and terrors of the existing world 
order would increase and intensify. The 
author of Revelation seems to have regarded 
the worsening of conditions for Christians in 
the Roman Empire under Domitian as 
signifying that this catastrophic period had 
begun. Apparently, he wrote chiefly to 
encourage the church to endure this 
terrifying final crisis in the confident 
expectation of an imminent eternally just 
age. 

III. Literary Form 

Print section 

In communicating to his fellow Christians 
"what you see, what is and what is to take 
place hereafter" (1:19), the author 
deliberately chose a literary vehicle that 
would tend to conceal his message from the 
enemies of the church. This vehicle was the 
apocalypse, a Jewish literary form 
characterized by an often elaborately 
symbolic interpretation and prediction of 
events (see Apocalyptic Writings). The 
apocalyptic symbols of Revelation are derived 
from prophetic books of the Old Testament 
and from the common Christian tradition. No 
doubt the earliest readers of the book 
understood its visions and imagery, but in 
the centuries since Revelation was written, 
the key to the original meaning of its 
symbolism was lost. Efforts to recover it 
have produced widely divergent systems of 
interpretation but no general recognition of 
any one system as nearest to the author's 
meaning. Apart from its religious message, 
Revelation continues to be valued today for 
its magnificent literary qualities and for its 
depiction of a historical crisis in Christianity.


-The Mad Dr. Shock
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit  
 
From:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   7/7/2001 11:50 am  
To:  Dr_Shock   (41 of 80)  
 
  102.41 in reply to 102.40  
 
The description you quote shows no indication that the book of Revelation was written around 500 A.D. 
There is a difference in style between the Gospel of John and the book of Revelation. Some attribute it to a different author. Is there a different style between the poetry of Keating and the prose of Keating? 

I am currently reading the poetry of Keating, and have read Jungle Book. While the substance often times in the poetry deals with India, as does quite a bit of the Jungle book, the styles are different. 

In John's case, it may be as simple as him having a scribe (much like Paul did) to pen the words for the gospel, whereas on Patmos, he may have been limited. Also seeing the vision that John saw, would probably lead to profound changes that may show up in writing. 

Ignatius ... regarding John: 

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-28.htm#P2610_431080 

"Chapter III.-The True Doctrine Respecting Christ. 

Mindful of him, do ye by all means know that Jesus the Lord was truly born of Mary, being made of a woman; and was as truly crucified. For, says he, "God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of the Lord Jesus."11 And He really suffered, and died, and rose again. For says [Paul], "If Christ should become passible, and should be the first to rise again from the dead."12 And again, "In that He died, He died unto sin once: but in that He liveth, He liveth unto God."13 Otherwise, what advantage would there be in [becoming subject to] bonds, if Christ has not died? what advantage in patience? what advantage in [enduring] stripes? And why such facts as the following: Peter was crucified; Paul and James were slain with the sword; John was banished to Patmos; Stephen was stoned to death by the Jews who killed the Lord? But, [in truth, ] none of these sufferings were in vain; for the Lord was really crucified by the ungodly" 

At this point I see no reason to believe that anyone other then John the Apostle is the author. 

There is a quote that says "many scholars are inclined...". Scholars will always dispute the origin of ancient works, as they were not around to verify authorship, and frankly, because it is a way of getting published. 

God's blessings 
Scott 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Dr_Shock   7/7/2001 4:38 pm  
To:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   (42 of 80)  
 
  102.42 in reply to 102.41  
 
<<<There is a difference in style between the Gospel of John and the book of Revelation. Some attribute it to a different author. Is there a different style between the poetry of Keating and the prose of Keating? 
In John's case, it may be as simple as him having a scribe (much like Paul did) to pen the words for the gospel, whereas on Patmos, he may have been limited. Also seeing the vision that John saw, would probably lead to profound changes that may show up in writing.>>> 

This argument is all well and good, however one will be quick to notice that, even between poetry and prose, Keating uses the same literary tools and is, in fact, rather "cookie-cutter" in his writing. Similarly, a linguistics researcher can tell weather an author was male or female just by a sample of written work without handwriting analysis being taken into account. People have writing styles similar to blueprints which, dispite written voice, grammer and even spoken dictation, are inherant to every individual. Most experts in the field of literary analysis can even tell what era a particular piece of work comes from from the style. 

(This is a poor example, but its pretty straight forward.) R.L. Stein (the kiddie horror author) only writes about 1 out of every 10 books published under his name. The rest are all done by professional ghost writers who are usually trained in copying literary style. However, its still fairly easy to pick out the Stein works from the ghost writer's. 

Because of the style of Revelation, the general census is that it was written about 75-100 AD. There has never been a good historical or literary link made betwee John of Ptmos and John the Apostle. There are some Roman writings about a John on Ptmos, however its not the Apostle they're talking about. There have been some connections made form Revelation to John the Elder, but nothing really that mind blowing. All we know for sure is that Revelation was written by some guy named John on some Island around Patmos (but not directly on the island itself) in the Aegean Sea. For many years, Revelation wasn't even allowed to be presented as part of the Bible because the authorship couldn't be proven.


-The Mad Dr. Shock
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


Message 43 of 80 was Deleted    



  From:  Blood_Bought (RFI1965)   7/7/2001 6:38 pm  
To:  Natureboy (Vamp_Rob)   (44 of 80)  
 
  102.44 in reply to 102.1  
 
To answer your question, in a word, yes.



In the name of Yeshua haMashiach,
God bless you,
Russ


 

 The
Spirit-Filled Christian
Forum  
Vsit My Family Website 
 
 

And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.
Luke 3:22
 Vsit My MINISTRY Website 
 
 

  Watch this space for current promotions.
  
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   7/7/2001 6:45 pm  
To:  Dr_Shock   (45 of 80)  
 
  102.45 in reply to 102.42  
 
>>>Because of the style of Revelation, the general census is that it was written about 75-100 AD. 
This is the consensus of the church in general. 

>>There has never been a good historical or literary link made betwee John of Ptmos and John the Apostle. 

My quote of Ireneus, who was a disciple of John makes the claim that John was on Patmos. Since his writing is dated prior to 156 A.D., I give the benefit of the doubt to those who were closer at hand. 

>>There are some Roman writings about a John on Ptmos, however its not the Apostle they're talking about. 

Whether there were other John's on Patmos at other times, I have no knowledge, but Ireneus' John is clearly the Apostle, as he is listed with other apostles, including his brother James. 

>>There have been some connections made form Revelation to John the Elder, but nothing really that mind blowing. All we know for sure is that Revelation was written by some guy named John on some Island around Patmos (but not directly on the island itself) in the Aegean Sea. 

Whether it was written on Patmos, or after John was returned from exile (around 96 A.D.) makes no difference. 

>>For many years, Revelation wasn't even allowed to be presented as part of the Bible because the authorship couldn't be proven. 

Actually is was in many early canon's of scripture, including the Muratorian Canon (A.D. 170) and Origen (185-254) quoted from all of the New Testament books, including Revelation in his writing. 

The following held the authorship to be John the Apostle... 
"Justn Martyr, the Shepherd of Hermes, Melito, Irenaeus, the Muratorian Canon, Tertullian, Clement of Alenandria, Origen, and others." - Holy Bible, The Open Bible, New King James Version, Thomas Nelson Publshers, copyright 1997... in the introduction to Revelation, dealing with the authorship of Revelation. 

God's blessings 
Scott
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  R/C Floats (RachelsChild)   7/7/2001 6:58 pm  
To:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   (46 of 80)  
 
  102.46 in reply to 102.43  
 
Hi Bob.... 
What request of John? 
John's been living on the earth somewhere, for 2000 years now? Nobody has seen him or knows where he is or what he's doing but he's here, for sure?? I suppose you have some Mormon writing somewhere that has this revealed information recorded, all on good authority of course. 
This story reminds me of Elvis sightings. 
R/C 
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   7/7/2001 7:50 pm  
To:  R/C Floats (RachelsChild)   (47 of 80)  
 
  102.47 in reply to 102.46  
 
RACHELSCHILD wrote:
John's been living on the earth somewhere, for 2000 years now? Nobody has seen him or knows where he is or what he's doing but he's here, for sure?? I suppose you have some Mormon writing somewhere that has this revealed information recorded, all on good authority of course.

This story reminds me of Elvis sightings.
  I did not cite any Mormon-specific writings; I cited the Bible.  John 21:20-23.  This reference is, I admit, somewhat vague, unless you put it in context with other information from elsewhere in the New Testament, but it does, I think, make it clear, of the disciple whom Jesus loved (Elsewhere, we learn that John was known as the beloved.), that that disciple should not die.  This is not a Mormon-specific doctrine, but one straight out of the Bible, and, as far as I know, well-accepted in most other Christian sects as well.  Whatever church you go to, ask your own pastor about this story, and he will probably confirm that it is, according to his own belief and understanding, true, much as I have represented it.

  For some reason, it appears that my previous posting on this subject has fallen prey to Davidian censorship.  I cannot imagine why David would be afraid of having anyone read of this particular truth, but I rather expect that this posting will probably be censored as well.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 To email me, remove the string .nospam from the email address which appears below.  DO NOT send me any form of advertising, chain letters, or other such garbage.  Spammers will be dealt with very harshly!

bob-blaylock.nospam@usa.net  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  David (DavidABrown)    7/7/2001 8:15 pm  
To:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   (48 of 80)  
 
  102.48 in reply to 102.47  
 
Your previous post was Deleted for containing unnecessary personal attacks. 
Make your posts but omit the derogatory statements. 

Thank You. 

In your post are you trying to imply that Jesus said John would remain physically alive on the earth until Jesus returned? 

John 21:22 
Jesus begins speaking with the word if. If Jesus wants John to remain physically alive he Will, if not then John wont. 

John Chapter 20 verse 30 is considered to be the original end of Johns Gospel, It looks Like John Himself added another chapter to his writing on his own Scroll, to eradicate this very Rumor that John was to remain on earth until the return of Jesus. 

PS. Please do not try to be coy, IF you have a point then by all means make it! 





David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   7/7/2001 8:55 pm  
To:  ALL   (49 of 80)  
 
  102.49 in reply to 102.48  
 
David (DAVIDABROWN) wrote:
In your post are you trying to imply that Jesus said John would remain physically alive on the earth until Jesus returned?
  That's exactly what Jesus said.  I invite anyone to pick up a copy of the Bible, and read the relevant passage for themselves.



John 21:22

Jesus begins speaking with the word if. If Jesus wants John to remain physically alive he Will, if not then John wont.
  Again, I invite anyone to check out the relevant passage for themselves.  David is misquoting and misrepresenting what is written there.  Don't just read verse 22, but verses 20-23.  I'd post a link to the actual text, but David would only censor it if I did.



John Chapter 20 verse 30 is considered to be the original end of Johns Gospel, It looks Like John Himself added another chapter to his writing on his own Scroll, to eradicate this very Rumor that John was to remain on earth until the return of Jesus.
  Again, I urge all readers to read this for themselves.  See for yourself what is written in Chapter 21, and see if it is in any way consistent with what David says of it.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 To email me, remove the string .nospam from the email address which appears below.  DO NOT send me any form of advertising, chain letters, or other such garbage.  Spammers will be dealt with very harshly!

bob-blaylock.nospam@usa.net  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Blood_Bought (RFI1965)   7/7/2001 9:09 pm  
To:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   (50 of 80)  
 
  102.50 in reply to 102.49  
 
Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me. Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? 
John 22:22-23 
Now...I've already gotten sick just reading this Mormon doctrine but this is just about all I can stomach...Mormons, not being Christians, will never fully grasp the true meanings hidden in the bible because they are without the Spirit of God...That said, let's explore these verses.... 

Joh 21:22-23 - Jesus saith to him, If I will that he tarry fill I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me--From the fact that John alone of the Twelve survived the destruction of Jerusalem, and so witnessed the commencement of that series of events which belongs to "the last days," many good interpreters think that this is a virtual prediction of fact, and not a mere supposition. But this is very doubtful, and it seems more natural to consider our Lord as intending to give no positive indication of John's fate at all, but to signify that this was a matter which belonged to the Master of both, who would disclose or conceal it as He thought proper, and that Peter's part was to mind his own affairs. Accordingly, in "follow thou Me," the word "thou" is emphatic. Observe the absolute disposal of human life which Christ claims: "If I will that he tarry till I come," 

Sufferings, pains, and death, will appear formidable even to the experienced Christian; but in the hope to glorify God, to leave a sinful world, and to be present with his Lord, he becomes ready to obey the Redeemer's call, and to follow Him through death to glory. It is the will of Christ that his disciples should mind their own duty, and not be curious about future events, either as to themselves or others. Many things we are apt to be anxious about, which are nothing to us. Other people's affairs are nothing to us, to intermeddle in; we must quietly work, and mind our own business. Many curious questions are put about the counsels of God, and the state of the unseen world, as to which we may say, What is this to us? And if we attend to the duty of following Christ, we shall find neither heart nor time to meddle with that which does not belong to us. How little are any unwritten traditions to be relied upon! Let the Scripture be its own interpreter, and explain itself; as it is, in a great measure, its own evidence, and proves itself, for it is light. See the easy setting right such mistakes by the word of Christ. Scripture language is the safest channel for Scripture truth; the words which the Holy Ghost teaches, 1 Cor. 2:13. Those who cannot agree in the same terms of art, and the application of them, may yet agree in the same Scripture terms, and to love one another. 

Now...I do have some more questions for you, Bob... 

If the Book of Mormon is true, why do Indians fail to turn white when they become Mormons? (2 Nephi 30:6, prior to the 1981 revision). 

If the Book of Mormon is true, then why has the Mormon church changed it? Examples are: 1 Nephi 11:21; 19:20; 20:1 and Alma 29:4. Compare these with the original Book of Mormon. (Gerald and Sandra Tanner have counted 3913 changes in the book of Mormon, excluding punctuation changes.) 

How did Joseph Smith carry home the golden plates of the Book of Mormon, and how did the witnesses lift them so easily? (They weighed about 230 lbs. Gold, with a density of 19.3 weighs 1204.7 lbs. per cubic foot. The plates were 7" x 8" by about 6". See Articles of Faith, by Talmage, page 262, 34th ed.) 

If Moroni devoutly practiced the Mormon Gospel, why is he an angel now rather than a God? (Doc. & Cov. 132:17,37) 

Why do Mormons emphasize part of the Word of Wisdom and ignore the part forbidding the eating of meat except in winter, cold or famine? (Doc. & Cov. 89:12,13). 

Why did the Nauvoo House not stand forever and ever? (Doc. & Cov. 124:56-60). 

If Jesus was conceived as a result of a physical union between God and Mary, how was Jesus born of a virgin? (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1, page 50). 

How did Nephi with a few men on a new continent build a temple like Solomon's while Solomon needed 163,300 workmen and seven years to build his temple? (1 Kings 5:13-18 and 2 Nephi 5:15-17). 

Why was Joseph Smith still preaching against polygamy in October 1843 after he got his revelation in July 1843 commanding the practice of polygamy? (Doc. & Cov. 132; and History of the Church Vol. 6, page 46, or Teachings of the Prophet, page 324). 

God rejected the fig leaf aprons which Adam and Eve made (Gen. 3:21). Why do Mormons memorialize the fall by using fig leaf aprons in the secret temple ceremonies? 

Whaddya say, Bob? Got any answers to these?



In the name of Yeshua haMashiach,
God bless you,
Russ

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Dr_Shock   7/7/2001 9:33 pm  
To:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   (51 of 80)  
 
  102.51 in reply to 102.45  
 
<<<This is the consensus of the church in general.>>> 
And the Church of Rome has yet to get one thing right even when faced with scholarly research. They have too many problems since their scholars like to fight for the Pope's blessing. 

<<<My quote of Ireneus, who was a disciple of John makes the claim that John was on Patmos. Since his writing is dated prior to 156 A.D., I give the benefit of the doubt to those who were closer at hand.>>> 

Ireneus was definitely not a disciple of John, first of all. He was born in the mid second century well after the historical death of John the Apostle who died at the beginning of the second century according to the church (and probably well before that). Hardly a first hand account by any means. Catholic mythology says that he was, in fact, the disciple of Polycarp whose general exploits are fairly undocumented by historically reliable sources (for example he often describes his own acts as Herculean in nature why no other native text ever speaks of him, nor does John of Patmos). Ireneus was also a right hand man of the Pope Victor. Most of his research revolved around refuting Gnosticism through the Gospel of John. One of Ireneus' main jobs for the Pope was to convert Pagan Europe through whatever scripture means necessary including propaganda. This is why Ireneus is considered the father of the modern Catholic Church. 

<<<Whether there were other John's on Patmos at other times, I have no knowledge, but Ireneus' John is clearly the Apostle, as he is listed with other apostles, including his brother James.>>> 

Like I said, there is no way Ireneus was ever a disciple of John. Even the modern Catholic Church calls him a 2nd generation disciple of John or only a Disciple in spirit rather than fact. 

<<<Actually is was in many early canon's of scripture, including the Muratorian Canon (A.D. 170) and Origen (185-254) quoted from all of the New Testament books, including Revelation in his writing.>>> 

The Muratorian Canon (A.K.A. The Muratorian Fragment because that is all it really is) was a fragment listing the books of the New Testament. It even states that the Church of Rome didn't approve of the Revelation to John and Peter and the latter was, therefore, not accepted in the church. In fact, the Muratorian Canon mentions the Pastor of Hermas as "false scripture" and, like Revelation, was stricken from Catholic teaching. The Canon was nothing more than a compiling list for the early Church of Rome. Nothing more, nothing less. 

Origen was a Biblical Scholar and teacher who mostly concentrated his study on Old Testament works. One of his main specialties was allegory interpretation and this is why, most likely, he took a liking to Revelation and taught it as example. Lets face it, when it comes to allegory, only the Book of Daniel even comes close. His small amount of work with Revelation was later used in the Middle Ages to promote the Crusades. 

<<<The following held the authorship to be John the Apostle... "Justn Martyr, the Shepherd of Hermes, Melito, Irenaeus, the Muratorian Canon, Tertullian, Clement of Alenandria, Origen, and others." - Holy Bible, The Open Bible, New King James Version, Thomas Nelson Publshers, copyright 1997... in the introduction to Revelation, dealing with the authorship of Revelation.>>> 

Most of the sources which you list as upholding the authorship of Revelation were either pawns of the Church or are those who wrote scripture which was later proven false. The Shepheard of Hermes is a good example since the Canon mentions his work as being "false scripture". The Canon itself was written in Rome by Roman priests. Logic would then dictate that none of the above really knew who wrote Revelation.


-The Mad Dr. Shock
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   7/8/2001 7:53 am  
To:  Dr_Shock   (52 of 80)  
 
  102.52 in reply to 102.51  
 
>And the Church of Rome has yet to get one thing right even when faced with scholarly research. They have too many problems since their scholars like to fight for the Pope's blessing. 
I don't know, I'm not a member of the church of Rome, nor have I ever been. 

>Ireneus was definitely not a disciple of John, first of all. He was born in the mid second century well after the historical death of John the Apostle who died at the beginning of the second century according to the church (and probably well before that). Hardly a first hand account by any means. Catholic mythology says that he was, in fact, the disciple of Polycarp whose general exploits are fairly undocumented by historically reliable sources (for example he often describes his own acts as Herculean in nature why no other native text ever speaks of him, nor does John of Patmos). Ireneus was also a right hand man of the Pope Victor. Most of his research revolved around refuting Gnosticism through the Gospel of John. One of Ireneus' main jobs for the Pope was to convert Pagan Europe through whatever scripture means necessary including propaganda. This is why Ireneus is considered the father of the modern Catholic Church. 

I was incorrect in my last post, instead of saying the quote was from Iraneaus, I should have said Ignatius. Sorry for the confusion 

>The Muratorian Canon (A.K.A. The Muratorian Fragment because that is all it really is) was a fragment listing the books of the New Testament. It even states that the Church of Rome didn't approve of the Revelation to John and Peter and the latter was, therefore, not accepted in the church. In fact, the Muratorian Canon mentions the Pastor of Hermas as "false scripture" and, like Revelation, was stricken from Catholic teaching. The Canon was nothing more than a compiling list for the early Church of Rome. Nothing more, nothing less. 

It needs to be nothing more then a compiling list. The issue is of the time Revelation was written and the authorship. The Muratorian Canon/Fragment (whichever term you care to use) shows that Revelation was written at a much earlier date then the 500 A.D. date of your original post to me. 

Whether sources are reliable from a theological stand point is always an issue for doctrine. But for when attempting to place events into a historical context, they can still have some value. 

>Logic would then dictate that none of the above really knew who wrote Revelation. 

An interesting form of logic. Just because person A is a pawn of person B, does not mean that they do not know the truth regarding specific fact 1. 
Specific fact 1 may have no relevence to the plans of person B, so person A knowing the truth is of no threat. 
Specific fact 1 may be of high consequence of person B, so person A denies the fact. But in that case, person A may still know the fact and just be lying. 
A multitude of person A types though, all claiming the same fact, should be taken seriously. Consider the time they lived in. There were no rapid communications and the churches were loosely tied together due to persecution (1st-2nd century A.D.). 

So, where are we now? I understand that there are arguments againt the authorship of Revelation by John the Apostle. The literary style arguement is actually the strongest, however, I don't believe it is enough of a argument to win over the consideration of the early church fathers. This due primarily because of the different nature of the books of John and the Revelation. If I were to put myself in John's shoes (or sandles or bare feet), I would say that the vision he saw overwhelmed him and he took to heart the command to write what he saw, so he decided to (a) not use a scribe, (b) relate exactly what he saw with little emblishement. And yet you still see many of the same qualities between the gospel and Revelation, i.e. contrasts of opposites, uses of words "word", "lamb", and "true." 

A note on Iraeneus - he was a disciple of Polycarp, and Polycarp a disciple of John. Again, how much is lost in one generation? Would we discount the writings of Washington Irving on the Life of George Washington? Given the choices, I trust a multiple of early church authors on the historical facts of Revelation (authorship, date), then 20th century scholars, seperated from the relative details by both distance and more importantly time. That is not to imply that modern scholars do not have value or cannot make valid points, just that there points must be weighed in accordance with all other things known on the subject. 

God's blessings 
Scott 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  R/C Floats (RachelsChild)   7/8/2001 10:16 am  
To:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   (53 of 80)  
 
  102.53 in reply to 102.49  
 
Bob.... 
Peter had asked Jesus, "What about this man..." (John) Jesus then said, "If I will that he remain till I come what is that to you? You follow Me." ( vs 22 NKJV ) Jesus wanted Peter focused on his relationship to Himself, not on the who or what if's of the other disciples. In otherwords, Jesus kindly said to Peter MYOB.....or translating to modern venacular, what I choose to do, or not do with John, Peter, is not the issue. 

John interjects further in vs 23( NKJV) .."this saying went out among the brethren that this disciple would not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die but, 'If I will he remain till I come, what is that to you?" John is refering back to the point Jesus made to Peter. He is not confirming the notion he would not die.... he was quieting down conjecture and rumor of the contrary. 

Again why don't you post the verses? Why must we trot on over to another website to read the verses? You certainly take the time to rewrite other's post's . Why not take the time to write out the three Bible verses you are referring to? 
R/C
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Dr_Shock   7/8/2001 1:01 pm  
To:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   (54 of 80)  
 
  102.54 in reply to 102.52  
 
<<<I was incorrect in my last post, instead of saying the quote was from Iraneaus, I should have said Ignatius. Sorry for the confusion.>>> 
Ignatius was often given credit without any scholarly proof. Please see http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07644a.htm for details. 

<<<It needs to be nothing more then a compiling list. The issue is of the time Revelation was written and the authorship. The Muratorian 
Canon/Fragment (whichever term you care to use) shows that Revelation was written at a much earlier date then the 500 A.D. date of your 
original post to me.>>> 

But the fragment found was a copy written in 800 A.D., which was a copy of another fragment written in the second century, well after the writing of Revelation. The original Greek fragment has never been found although the 800 A.D. Latin fragment is alive and well. Even then, the fact that it was found in a Catholic archive also makes it questionable. Please see http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10642a.htm for further details. 

Once again, I'm sorry about the 500 A.D. date although I've seen evidence that points to its writing at that time based off of a fragment found around Antioch. 

<<<An interesting form of logic. Just because person A is a pawn of person B, does not mean that they do not know the truth regarding specific fact 1. Specific fact 1 may have no relevance to the plans of person B, so person A knowing the truth is of no threat. Specific fact 1 may be of high consequence of person B, so person A denies the fact. But in that case, person A may still know the fact and just be 
lying. A multitude of person A types though, all claiming the same fact, should be taken seriously. Consider the time they lived in. There were no rapid communications and the churches were loosely tied together due to persecution (1st-2nd century A.D.).>>> 

No, what I was saying was that of the list of people/things which upheld the authorship of Revelation were more or less caught in a contradictory circle with each one saying the other was a liar to some degree. The Canon refutes the shepherd; the Church refutes parts of the Canon, etc. Person A, you mentioned in your post, would be the Church of Rome which has been historically proven to alter Biblical text to fit their needs at the time. Just because all of the 1st and 2nd century Roman Church said something was real doesn't make it real as history usually revokes most of their claims. 

<<<A note on Iraeneus - he was a disciple of Polycarp, and Polycarp a disciple of John. Again, how much is lost in one generation? Would we discount the writings of Washington Irving on the Life of George Washington? Given the choices, I trust a multiple of early church authors on the historical facts of Revelation (authorship, date), then 20th century scholars, seperated from the relative details by both distance and more importantly time. That is not to imply that modern scholars do not have value or cannot make valid points, just that there points must be weighed in accordance with all other things known on the subject.>>> 

Washington Irving never mentioned a lot about George Washington. I already mentioned all of the above (and below) about Polycarp in my previous post. There have never been any writings on the true exploits of Polycarp from any reliable source. Even when Polycarp talks about himself its often filled with exaggeration and ego. Hence why most modern scholars only consider him as an early martyr and not a profound builder of the church. 

Also, for John to use a scribe would be seriously out of character for him since all his other writings were done "in his own hand" (or in the hands of whoever wrote his work). Not to mention, how would he find a scribe in the middle of the Aegean Sea? Not many people wrote or read back then, especially in the proverbial middle-o-nowhere. 



-The Mad Dr. Shock
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   7/8/2001 4:18 pm  
To:  Dr_Shock   (55 of 80)  
 
  102.55 in reply to 102.54  
 
>>Washington Irving never mentioned a lot about George Washington. I already mentioned all of the above (and below) about Polycarp in my previous post. There have never been any writings on the true exploits of Polycarp from any reliable source. Even when Polycarp talks about himself its often filled with exaggeration and ego. Hence why most modern scholars only consider him as an early martyr and not a profound builder of the church. 
Washington Irving wrote five volumes in the 1850's call "The Life of George Washington," detailing his life from childhood through the Revolutionary war (through volumes 3, I have not read volumes 4 or 5 yet, I am waiting for them to be sent to me). A very detailed account. 

>>Also, for John to use a scribe would be seriously out of character for him since all his other writings were done "in his own hand" (or in the hands of whoever wrote his work). Not to mention, how would he find a scribe in the middle of the Aegean Sea? Not many people wrote or read back then, especially in the proverbial middle-o-nowhere. 

If I were to conjecture, I would say that John used a scribe for his epistles and his gospel (Greek was not his natural language), and wrote in his own writing Revelation. Just the opposite of what you thought I said. 

>>fact that it was found in a Catholic archive also makes it questionable 

Your links are to a Catholic encyclopedia, do you also question it as well? 

>>No, what I was saying was that of the list of people/things which upheld the authorship of Revelation were more or less caught in a contradictory circle with each one saying the other was a liar to some degree. 

Sounds like modern politicians. But all of the modern politicians agree on historical facts of their time period and the previous one, and further back in history. 

The point is, the authorship and date of Revelation are historical facts (whether we know the exact author or date). As such there is little benefit in the first century church manipulating those, although they may manipulate what was actually written (or wish to). But God is greater than man and is quite capable of sustaining His word regardless of the manipulations that man may try (or even seem to succeed in). 

I am not a member of the Catholic church, and do not seek to justify it. I do find however, sufficient evidence for me to believe that John the Apostle wrote Revelation, based on what is known to date. We may one day know absolutely, but until then, there is simply conjecture. 

God's blessings 
Scott 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited 7/8/2001 7:49:07 PM ET by SCOTTR1982 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Dr_Shock   7/8/2001 6:50 pm  
To:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   (56 of 80)  
 
  102.56 in reply to 102.55  
 
<<<Washington Irving wrote five volumes in the 1850's call "The Life of George Washington," detailing his life from childhood through the 
Revolutionary war (through volumes 3, I have not read volumes 4 or 5 yet, I am waiting for them to be sent to me). A very detailed account.>>> 
Read them. They're not bad, but they completely overlook Washington's womanizing, alcoholism and his involvement with the Masons. Those three facts, along with the fact that he was a hemp plantation owner are skirted by biographers both past and present. 

<<<If I were to conjecture, I would say that John used a scribe for his epistles and his gospel (Greek was not his natural language), and wrote in his own writing Revelation. Just the opposite of what you thought I said.>>> 

Then why are all of the New Testament books ever found only in Greek? One or two or even half of them written in Greek would leave little room for criticism. But all? You'd think that the Hebrews would have written it in their own language since they're the ones responsible for the New Testament. The Old Testament is written in Hebrew and Aramaic so why not the New Testament as well? Scholars (and the Jews) have been debating the whole authenticity of the New Testament because of this fact and the fact that none of the books of the Gospel could agree on Jesus' last words on the cross. The New Testament of the Bible has come under more scholarly criticism throughout time than any other holy book (or set thereof) in history. Certain religious denominations of Christianity still omit certain books of the New Testament for the above reasons. 

<<<Your links are to a Catholic encyclopedia, do you also question it as well?>>> 

It was a link I found about two weeks ago. I've been reading it for kicks more than much else and its good for referencing material on the subject(s) from a Christian standpoint. Unlike most sources, they point out some of the points where the Church was wrong. 

<<<Sounds like modern politicians. But all of the modern politicians agree on historical facts of their time period and the previous one, and further back in history.>>> 

But when each accuses the other of faking scripture (with good reason) while all of them supposedly contributed to scripture makes everything questionable at best. 

<<<The point is, the authorship and date of Revelation are historical facts (whether we know the exact author or date). As such there is little benefit in the first century church manipulating those, although they may manipulate what was actually written (or wish to). But God is greater than man and is quite capable of sustaining His word regardless of the manipulations that man may try (or even seem to succeed in).>>> 

You have yet to prove either as historical facts. Most Bibles are so uncertain on the subject that they only call Revelation "the Revelation to John" or "John of Patmos" rather than St. John or the Apostle John. Also citing their insecurities is their lack of including the Revelation to Paul (or was it Peter) which has just as much validity as John's supposed work. Revelation also appears to have been written by more than one author: 

"Also called Book of Revelation , or Apocalypse of John last 
book of the New Testament. It is the only book of the New 
Testament classified as apocalyptic literature rather than 
didactic or historical, indicating thereby its extensive use of 
visions, symbols, and allegory, especially in connection with 
future events. Revelation to John appears to be a collection 
of separate units composed by unknown authors who lived 
during the last quarter of the 1st century, though it purports 
to have been written by John, "the beloved disciple" of 
Jesus, at Patmos, in the Aegean Sea." 

See http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=64955&tocid=0 for details. 



-The Mad Dr. Shock
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   7/8/2001 7:56 pm  
To:  Dr_Shock   (57 of 80)  
 
  102.57 in reply to 102.56  
 
>>Read them. They're not bad, but they completely overlook Washington's womanizing, alcoholism and his involvement with the Masons. Those three facts, along with the fact that he was a hemp plantation owner are skirted by biographers both past and present. 
Actually, you are the first person I have ever heard that accused Washington of either womanizing or alcoholism. I have heard that he was a Mason, but I am waiting until I read his personal diaries until I decide how true that may have been. I do know that Jefferson was a womanizer and that U.S. Grant was an alcoholic. As to being a hemp plantation owner, there was nothing wrong or illegal with that at the time, so it would be irrelavent. As to his theological beliefs, again, I will wait to see what his diaries say. Letters from visitors to Mount Vernon to their friends take exception to Washington because he would let them have at his slaves for a little entertainment. This came from reading Flexnor's (SP?) work. 

>Then why are all of the New Testament books ever found only in Greek? One or two or even half of them written in Greek would leave little room for criticism. But all? You'd think that the Hebrews would have written it in their own language since they're the ones responsible for the New Testament. The Old Testament is written in Hebrew and Aramaic so why not the New Testament as well? Scholars (and the Jews) have been debating the whole authenticity of the New Testament because of this fact and the fact that none of the books of the Gospel could agree on Jesus' last words on the cross. The New Testament of the Bible has come under more scholarly criticism throughout time than any other holy book (or set thereof) in history. Certain religious denominations of Christianity still omit certain books of the New Testament for the above reasons. 

Greek was the common langauge of Jews that lived in the diaspora. Aramaic was the common language in Israel at the time. Jesus probably spoke in Aramaic and probably knew Hebrew. The disciples probably learned more greek later in life, but when address letters to churches that spoke greek, they used the greek language. If they ever wrote in aramaic, it was probably the "rough draft" of the letter that their scribe would then translate. 

The gospel difference on the last words of Jesus. 
Matthew does not record the "last words." Matthew 27:50 
Mark does not record his "last words." Mark 15:37 
Both say he cried out with a loud voice, what did he say? Those two don't record it. 
Luke does record what he said "Father, into Yor hands I commit My spirit." (Luke 23:46) 
John reports that Jesus said "It is finished" as his last words (John 19:30). 

Now is it a contradiction between John and Luke? I omit Matthew and Mark because the do not repeat what the words were. Could Jesus have said both and each of the authors only recorded one? Different witnesses at events see and hear different things. When questioned by the police, their testimonies are combined to see how things play out. It could be that the source that Luke used was too far away to hear the "it is finished" part, where John was close enough to hear those last words. 

The problem scholars have is that they need to make a name for themselves in their field, as I do in my field. 
To make a name, you must be published, and to be published you must report on an important subject (to your society) and say something unique. Most people in western society care in some form about the Bible (whether for good or for bad) then they do about any other "holy book." So of course it will come under more scrutiny then any other book. Add to that the need to say something new and, for emphasis, provacative, no wonder they do criticise. 

It is not that the arguments against it are not without merit, but they may have faulty assumptions. Like the assumption that it should be written in Aramaic because the authors (excepting Luke) were Jews. But the audience were churches that were mostly in Greece and Asia Minor (Turkey) who mostly spoke Greek as their common language. Why would it then be written in Aramaic? That arguement to me does not make sense. 

<<<Your links are to a Catholic encyclopedia, do you also question it as well?>>> 

>>It was a link I found about two weeks ago. I've been reading it for kicks more than much else and its good for referencing material on the subject(s) from a Christian standpoint. Unlike most sources, they point out some of the points where the Church was wrong. 

That makes sense. I found it interesting as well. 

>>But when each accuses the other of faking scripture (with good reason) while all of them supposedly contributed to scripture makes everything questionable at best. 

In matters of doctrine, I could not agree with you more. However when it comes to listing historical facts, one can be wrong on interpretation while getting the facts straight. It is easy to document the facts that led up to the start of WW II. It is harder to determine the interpretation of what those facts actually meant, and may people have many opinions. The early church fathers gave their opinions of what scripture meant, just like I do now. They got it right sometimes, they got it wrong sometimes. They are most useful for their quotes of scripture. 

>>You have yet to prove either as historical facts. Most Bibles are so uncertain on the subject that they only call Revelation "the Revelation to John" or "John of Patmos" rather than St. John or the Apostle John. 

I have not tried to "prove" the date or authorship, just to state why I believe them. Without being there in person, proof is actually impossible. I still have not seen sufficient evidence to show me that the date and authorship are incorrect, so I will continue to believe them until shown differently. Besides, the time date and author are less important then the contents, as is the case with most books. 

>>Revelation also appears to have been written by more than one author 

Appears is a wonderful word, but a subjective one. To one it may appear green, to another it may appear aqua-marine, to another blue. It appears to me to be written by the Apostle John around 90-100 A.D. 

As to the title of the book... I prefer the following 
"The Revelation of Jesus Christ" as it is the first five words of the books, and btw, the title my bible uses for it as well. 

God's blessings 
Scott 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Dr_Shock   7/8/2001 10:43 pm  
To:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   (58 of 80)  
 
  102.58 in reply to 102.57  
 
<<<Greek was the common langauge of Jews that lived in the diaspora. Aramaic was the common language in Israel at the time. Jesus probably spoke in Aramaic and probably knew Hebrew. The disciples probably learned more greek later in life, but when address letters to churches that spoke greek, they used the greek language. If they ever wrote in aramaic, it was probably the "rough draft" of the letter that their scribe would then translate.>>> 
Why would Jews from the Middle East care to write in Greek considering most who knew Greek would discount their words? A scribe was somewhat like a servant and I'm sure Jesus wouldn't have liked that too much. 

<<<Now is it a contradiction between John and Luke? I omit Matthew and Mark because the do not repeat what the words were. Could Jesus have said both and each of the authors only recorded one? Different witnesses at events see and hear different things. When questioned by the police, their testimonies are combined to see how things play out. It could be that the source that Luke used was too far away to hear the "it is finished" part, where John was close enough to hear those last words.>>> 

Since the disciples held onto every one of Jesus' words with such vigor don't you think that they would have at least gotten the Crucifixion right (which they did for the most part). In Mark, Jesus' last words are "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Mark 15:34). In Matthew, his last words are almost the same (Matthew 27:46). Two of the four books in the Gospel (Matthew and Mark) are actually the only two with most of the events in common. In fact, the other two can't even agree on the exact time of death. A police officer trained in forensics would most likely omit John and Luke form the story. 

<<<It is not that the arguments against it are not without merit, but they may have faulty assumptions. Like the assumption that it should be written in Aramaic because the authors (excepting Luke) were Jews. But the audience were churches that were mostly in Greece and Asia Minor (Turkey) who mostly spoke Greek as their common language. Why would it then be written in Aramaic? That argument to me does not make sense.>>> 

As I said, for one or two or even half to be written in Greek would leave little room for criticism. Interestingly enough, there weren't many Christians or Jews in Greece and Turkey at the time (not for another 150 or so years) so why all of the New Testament would be written in Greek makes little to no sense. Most of these people were of other religions who the Church was trying to convert by any means necessary (including force) and, honestly, if I were an Apostle, I'd try to get the Jews of the Middle East (my own people) first. 

<<<I have not tried to "prove" the date or authorship, just to state why I believe them. Without being there in person, proof is actually impossible. I still have not seen sufficient evidence to show me that the date and authorship are incorrect, so I will continue to believe them until shown differently. Besides, the time date and author are less important then the contents, as is the case with most books.>>> 

Yes, but do you think its morally correct to preach Revelation for the sole sake of fear and as proof that all Non Christians are automatically going to Hell? The way some are using Revelation mimics the way certain Christian cults were abusing it in the 2nd and 3rd century. 

<<<As to the title of the book... I prefer the following "The Revelation of Jesus Christ" as it is the first five words of the books, and btw, the title my bible uses for it as well.>>> 

Oooooooh! What Bible are you using? I've got about 5 different versions and none of them call Revelation by that name. I want a copy of whatever Bible it is that you have for research purposes. 



-The Mad Dr. Shock
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   7/9/2001 7:04 am  
To:  Dr_Shock   (59 of 80)  
 
  102.59 in reply to 102.58  
 
>Why would Jews from the Middle East care to write in Greek considering most who knew Greek would discount their words? A scribe was somewhat like a servant and I'm sure Jesus wouldn't have liked that too much. 
I gave you the reason in the last post. 

Jesus commanded all of His followers to be servants to each other. He would have no problem with people doing just that. He did say that the greatest in the kingdom of heaven would be the servant of all. So I am not sure why you would think that Jesus would not want us to be servants in the form of a scibe. 

>Since the disciples held onto every one of Jesus' words with such vigor don't you think that they would have at least gotten the Crucifixion right (which they did for the most part). In Mark, Jesus' last words are "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Mark 15:34). In Matthew, his last words are almost the same (Matthew 27:46). Two of the four books in the Gospel (Matthew and Mark) are actually the only two with most of the events in common. In fact, the other two can't even agree on the exact time of death. A police officer trained in forensics would most likely omit John and Luke form the story. 

I gave the reason in the last post, note the crying out in Matthew & Mark was after the "My God, My God..." statement. Not all of the apostles viewed the crucifiction first hand, most were scared and had scattered. John is the only one of the twelve mentioned as being at the scene of the cross. But then John makes mention that he did not quote everything that Jesus said or did in His ministry (John 20:30-31). 

Why would an officer omit John or Luke? Different people see things differently. He might have omitted Luke once he found out Luke's source and questioned him/her. But he would have kept John's, Matthew's, and Mark's... and attempted to find out why they were different. Were they standing/sitting in different locations? It appears John was fairly close to the cross based on the conversation in John's gospel. But where was Matthew or Mark? Scripture does not mention where they were sitting/standing to observe, or whether they obtained what happened from a third party (like Matthew did the birth and visit of the Magi). If they were farther away, then they would not have heard everything Jesus said. 

Try an experiment. Go to a meeting/class. After the class, compare notes of what was said with other people in that class. Did they all hear the same thing? Do they all remember the exact thing, verbatum? 

Why do we place that requirement on the human authors that the Holy Spirit worked through to compose the Bible? Is it because of God's intervention that you think it must be so? It appears to me that God has never had an intention of making men into robots, why should we expect that He would to form His scripture? If it were necessary, I am sure He would have, but it appears to have not been necessary in order to accomplish His task. 

>As I said, for one or two or even half to be written in Greek would leave little room for criticism. Interestingly enough, there weren't many Christians or Jews in Greece and Turkey at the time (not for another 150 or so years) so why all of the New Testament would be written in Greek makes little to no sense. Most of these people were of other religions who the Church was trying to convert by any means necessary (including force) and, honestly, if I were an Apostle, I'd try to get the Jews of the Middle East (my own people) first. 

There were not many Christians anywhere, and they were only beginning to be called Christian. Acts tells us that from early on there were believers to whom Aramaic was not their natural (regular) language. A asian-american born in the U.S. has english as their primary language, a hebrew born in Ephesus, would speak greek. 

The first century church was in no position to use force of any king, other then the force of the Holy Spirit directly working on the hearts of people. Later in church history, yes, force was used. And it was wrong. 

The apostles did preach to the Jew's of the middle east as well. But most of the books were written by Paul to Greek/Asian churches. Luke wrote books to Theopolis, doesn't sound like a Hebrew name to me. The Jewish people were already partially scattered around (by choice, at that point) and spoke the languages of the cities they lived in. Acts 2 is fairly clear that many people were in Jerusalem at Pentecost, to whom Aramaic was not their primary language. Why were they there? To celebrate Pentecost, as Jews were to do. 

>Yes, but do you think its morally correct to preach Revelation for the sole sake of fear and as proof that all Non Christians are automatically going to Hell? The way some are using Revelation mimics the way certain Christian cults were abusing it in the 2nd and 3rd century. 

Is it morally correct to leave out any of the teaching of Jesus? He taught of both heaven and hell and more of hell then heaven. Do I think there is a modern over emphasis on Revelation to the exclustion of actual ministering to people in need? On the surface, at least, yes. But then I know of many ministries that are more concerned with feeding the poor and visiting prisoners and the sick. Its not as black and white as you may think. Where I have heard Revelation preached it is more about warning of things to come, and directed toward the church. Maybe its just the sources that have preached it to you that give that impression. Check out www.calvarychapel.org and read whats in their library on the issue. Also try reading the bible study on Revelation located at www.bible.org 

>Oooooooh! What Bible are you using? I've got about 5 different versions and none of them call Revelation by that name. I want a copy of whatever Bible it is that you have for research purposes. 

My main study bible is the "Holy Bible, the Open Bible, New King James Version, Thomas-Nelson publishers." The titles did not exist in the originals, they were later man-made additions, just like the chapter and verse labels and headings. They can serve a purpose, but they are not part of what is considered inspired. 

God's blessings 
Scott 




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited 7/9/01 11:20:06 AM ET by SCOTTR1982 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


   From:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   7/9/2001 11:51 am  
To:  StevenJn316   (60 of 80)  
 
  102.60 in reply to 102.31  
 
The Old Testament is filled with passages about God being merciful and loving and gracious. The New Testament is filled with passages of God being righteous and bringing judgment to the wicked. 
The idea that there is two different gods being described in the testaments is rather odd to me, given the entirety of Scripture. 

Well, you just said it yourself, that the god YOU read about is "merciful and loving and gracious". If I can show you a god described as wicked, vengeful and spiteful, would that be enough to convince you that there are at LEAST two different entities being described (or at least ONE with a severe Multiple Personality Disorder)?






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit  
 
From:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   7/9/2001 1:25 pm  
To:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   (61 of 80)  
 
  102.61 in reply to 102.41  
 
There is a difference in style between the Gospel of John and the book of Revelation. Some attribute it to a different author. Is there a different style between the poetry of Keating and the prose of Keating? 
I am currently reading the poetry of Keating, and have read Jungle Book. 

Geez, and all along I thought Rudyard KIPLING wrote "The Jungle Book". 

(Don't worry, your point was still taken.)

;0)

(But I have to wonder if you really ARE reading a book that you can't get the author's name right on, eh?)






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   7/9/2001 1:42 pm  
To:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   (62 of 80)  
 
  102.62 in reply to 102.61  
 
>Geez, and all along I thought Rudyard KIPLING wrote "The Jungle Book". 
Actually, I believe you are correct. Currently I am reading his (Kiplings) Poetry works. Included in there are all of the poems in The Jungle Book which I read a few months ago. 

The reason I don't get names correct all the time is that it is not a gift I have. I still look at people I have known for years and have to search my memory for a name. The second reason is that I am reading both Kiplings poetry and Washington Irvings collected works. I enjoy the prose much more then the poetry. 

That will lead to an obvious question: Why am I reading poetry? All of the reading I do is related to my children's curriculum which is heavily based on reading classics (children and adult). I am reading in advance of them so that I have some idea what they are talking about later. And I have enjoyed some of the poems, but you cannot read them as quickly as prose. 

God's blessings 
Scott
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   7/9/2001 2:07 pm  
To:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   (63 of 80)  
 
  102.63 in reply to 102.62  
 
Scooby R:
The reason I don't get names correct all the time is that it is not a gift I have. 

Yup. I have the same problem.






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  StevenJn316   7/9/2001 2:20 pm  
To:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   (64 of 80)  
 
  102.64 in reply to 102.60  
 
Again, your problems dissolve if you look at context. Show me a loving man in this world to his wife, children and his neighbors...a hard worker, provider etc. 
Then you show me the same man, without that information, but show me a man killing snakes in his back yard and shooting a man who comes into his house....of course if you see the context as that man shot another to protect his wife and kids (in accordance to the law) then it makese sense we can still call him a loving, good man.... 

The God of the bible makes His will known and the consequences of dosobeying that will...when others still rebel and suffer for it...what more would we expect....Likewise God shows his love and mercy throughout the Bible as well....God makes promises and then keeps his word. 

One example, he warned the people for over 100 years of a great flood, and Noah would have let anyone on board who repented and believed God's word...but they did not, God kept his word and sent a flood (due to their sins) and then God is blamed by some for being so mean to wipe out the world. If people would believe God's word, a lot of problems would go away. 

CONTEXT!!!
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Al Kupone (Kupone)   7/9/2001 3:29 pm  
To:  StevenJn316   (65 of 80)  
 
  102.65 in reply to 102.64  
 
The God of the bible makes His will known and the consequences of dosobeying that will...when others still rebel and suffer for it...what more would we expect....Likewise God shows his love and mercy throughout the Bible as well....God makes promises and then keeps his word. 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= 

Then why did God let the Romans Dominate the Jews? Why didn't he just wipe them out like he is supposed to have done to S&M or Egypt? 

Al Kupone
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Dr_Shock   7/9/2001 3:56 pm  
To:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   (66 of 80)  
 
  102.66 in reply to 102.59  
 
<<<Jesus commanded all of His followers to be servants to each other. He would have no problem with people doing just that. He did say that the greatest in the kingdom of heaven would be the servant of all. So I am not sure why you would think that Jesus would not want us to be servants in the form of a scibe.>>> 
One problem with this; If Jesus' words weren't in Greek at the time then how could one of his followers possibly get a scribe capable of translating Hebrew allegory to Greek? Translation form Hebrew to any other language isn't an easy task. Most of Pilot's scribes weren't even this competent. 

<<<Why would an officer omit John or Luke? Different people see things differently. He might have omitted Luke once he found out Luke's source and questioned him/her. But he would have kept John's, Matthew's, and Mark's... and attempted to find out why they were different. Were they standing/sitting in different locations? It appears John was fairly close to the cross based on the conversation in John's gospel. But where was Matthew or Mark? Scripture does not mention where they were sitting/standing to observe, or whether they obtained what happened from a third party (like Matthew did the birth and visit of the Magi). If they were farther away, then they would not have heard everything Jesus said.>>> 

As I said, John and Luke can't seem to agree on the time of death other than it was the 9th hour. The other circumstances surrounding the death of Christ are extremely different. For example, Jesus has a last drink of vinegar in John while this is omitted from Luke. Jesus' conversation with the thieves he was killed with doesn't exist in John. The meeting between Jesus and Pilot is also quite different between all four books of the Gospel. The way in which the Roman soldiers divide up the clothing of Jesus also differes greatly between all four books. You yourself said that perhaps not all were first hand accounts, and with than and the above information a police officer would question the whole nature of the story except for a few key points. 

<<<Try an experiment. Go to a meeting/class. After the class, compare notes of what was said with other people in that class. Did they all hear the same thing? Do they all remember the exact thing, verbatum?>>> 

No, but a majority of people will get the main points correct and would never miss a major piece of conversation unless its being repeated second hand to them. First hand accounts automatically retain more information in long term memory because of the sensory input involved from the surrounding area. Also, emotionally stressful stimuli (such as watching a crime while not being part of it) causes more information to cross over from short term to long term memory. The Apostles were quite disturbed by what they saw and, if they were there, would have retained more of the key information. There would be more constants between the four books of the Gospel on the main points and the general events. 

<<<There were not many Christians anywhere, and they were only beginning to be called Christian. Acts tells us that from early on there were believers to whom Aramaic was not their natural (regular) language. A asian-american born in the U.S. has english as their primary language, a hebrew born in Ephesus, would speak greek.>>> 

As I stated before; How can you have a believer of a religion which hasn't even been presented in that believers language yet? 

<<<The first century church was in no position to use force of any king, other then the force of the Holy Spirit directly working on the hearts of people. Later in church history, yes, force was used. And it was wrong.>>> 

Polycarp was a warrior of the church who had killed many a Non Christian in an effort to convert them. In the 1st century Rome was already Christian as they had already had their first Pope. 

<<<Is it morally correct to leave out any of the teaching of Jesus?>>> 

Its not morally correct to keep the truth from the people, however it is even more a sin to teach that which cannot be verified and that which has the ability to raise cults out of nowhere as the only truth. Too many people emphasize the "fire and brimstone" attitude of God, expecting that to convert Non Christians to Christianity. Why they think this would work is beyond me. 



-The Mad Dr. Shock
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  StevenJn316   7/9/2001 3:58 pm  
To:  Al Kupone (Kupone)   (67 of 80)  
 
  102.67 in reply to 102.65  
 
Your question is answered by Jesus himself as he predicted the Romans would overthrow Jerusalem and destroy the temple as a judgment upon them for rejecting their own Messiah when he came. 
Jesus wept when he said this by the way. 

The Bible is very clear on this point you asked.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   7/9/2001 4:32 pm  
To:  Dr_Shock   (68 of 80)  
 
  102.68 in reply to 102.66  
 
>One problem with this; If Jesus' words weren't in Greek at the time then how could one of his followers possibly get a scribe capable of translating Hebrew allegory to Greek? Translation form Hebrew to any other language isn't an easy task. Most of Pilot's scribes weren't even this competent. 
Many Greek speaking Jews were in Jerusalem both during Passover and Pentecost. This is brought out in Acts 2. Peter and Disciples came out among them speaking in "tongues" which happen to be the native language of these foreign Jews. Then they were preached to by Peter and 3000 came to salvation that day, from all over the world. This is how the first Greek speaking Jews came to a knowledge of Christ, and as they were Jews, they spoke both the language of where they were born and also Hebrew (as they were taught in their religious instruction). 

Since the books of the Bible took a couple of decades to begin showing up, the time for translation was adequate. As to Pilot's scribes, Judah didn't get the cream of the crop of people from Rome. Add to that the aide of God and the devotion to God of the writers, and it makes lots of sense. 

>>As I said, John and Luke can't seem to agree on the time of death other than it was the 9th hour. The other circumstances surrounding the death of Christ are extremely different. For example, Jesus has a last drink of vinegar in John while this is omitted from Luke. Jesus' conversation with the thieves he was killed with doesn't exist in John. The meeting between Jesus and Pilot is also quite different between all four books of the Gospel. The way in which the Roman soldiers divide up the clothing of Jesus also differes greatly between all four books. You yourself said that perhaps not all were first hand accounts, and with than and the above information a police officer would question the whole nature of the story except for a few key points 

John did not mention the time of death. The rest of the disciples had run off scared the night before and were still trembling 3 days later when Jesus appeared to them. Yes a researcher would obtain what witnesses said happened. Among the witnesses were some Roman soldiers and John, and a few of the women followers, and many scoffers. Matthew, Mark, and Luke agree exactly on how the clothing of Jesus was divided. John goes into more detail, as expected of the actual witness. Take some time to reread the four accounts of the crucifiction before making a comment that they vary greatly. 

A police officer to heard of 2nd hand reports would investigate the sources of those reports (the first hand accounts) and report on those. A historian uses 2nd hand reports all the time, that is all he has, unless he witnessed the event himself. 

>No, but a majority of people will get the main points correct and would never miss a major piece of conversation unless its being repeated second hand to them. First hand accounts automatically retain more information in long term memory because of the sensory input involved from the surrounding area. Also, emotionally stressful stimuli (such as watching a crime while not being part of it) causes more information to cross over from short term to long term memory. The Apostles were quite disturbed by what they saw and, if they were there, would have retained more of the key information. There would be more constants between the four books of the Gospel on the main points and the general events. 

The majority would miss the conversation that they either did not hear (because of a lower voice level), or were distracted about. They may also leave out a detail here or there if it is not important to the points they are making. There was a lot of activity going on around the cross, the women were crying, the crowds were yelling, the soldiers were doing there thing. A lot of details, some people tune out. Maybe while the thieves were scoffing, John was busy comforting the women. I don't know, but I don't buy that all witnesses remember the exact same things. It doesn't happen now, it didn't happen then. 

>Polycarp was a warrior of the church who had killed many a Non Christian in an effort to convert them. In the 1st century Rome was already Christian as they had already had their first Pope. 

Please provide the source for both Polycarp and the first Pope. The Catholics believe Peter was the first pope, but I see no where is scripture where he claimed that title. So I don't buy that popes showed up that early. 

>Its not morally correct to keep the truth from the people, however it is even more a sin to teach that which cannot be verified and that which has the ability to raise cults out of nowhere as the only truth. Too many people emphasize the "fire and brimstone" attitude of God, expecting that to convert Non Christians to Christianity. Why they think this would work is beyond me. 

I agree, to many people put too much emphasis on the "fire and brimstone" teaching, as though it will bring people to Christ. All evidence points the other way (in order to get true disciples), including God's word (Romans 2:4). Even the book of Revelation shows that all the judgement from God does not lead a majority to Him, even though they will be able to see His wrath first hand. 

As to raising cults... any belief system can raise cults when manipulative people or wacko's get to believing it and then to distorting it. It the Western world most cults have a loose basis in western religions. In the far east, they are offshoots of Buddha or Hindu faiths. Remember the subway chemical attack in Japan? That was instigated by a cult. 

God's blessings 
Scott
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Dr_Shock   7/9/2001 8:16 pm  
To:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   (69 of 80)  
 
  102.69 in reply to 102.68  
 
<<<Many Greek speaking Jews were in Jerusalem both during Passover and Pentecost. This is brought out in Acts 2. Peter and Disciples came out among them speaking in "tongues" which happen to be the native language of these foreign Jews. Then they were preached to by Peter and 3000 came to salvation that day, from all over the world. This is how the first Greek speaking Jews came to a knowledge of Christ, and as they were Jews, they spoke both the language of where they were born and also Hebrew (as they were taught in their religious instruction).>>> 
This makes absolutely no historical sense. Biblical sense, yes, but historical sense, no. Nor does the Bible mention where the Jews present at this preaching were from. The only references in Acts 2 are to, "Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jeruslaem" and "Men of Israel". Considering the average person of the time never went outside of a day's walk from the town of their birth, the idea that Greek Jews were present is highly doutful. 

<<<John did not mention the time of death. The rest of the disciples had run off scared the night before and were still trembling 3 days later when Jesus appeared to them. Yes a researcher would obtain what witnesses said happened. Among the witnesses were some Roman soldiers and John, and a few of the women followers, and many scoffers. Matthew, Mark, and Luke agree exactly on how the clothing of Jesus was divided. John goes into more detail, as expected of the actual witness. Take some time to reread the four accounts of the crucifixion before making a comment that they vary greatly.>>> 

If the soldiers were witnesses then why are they're no written manuscripts by Pilate or any of his men regarding the resurrection of Jesus? All the Roman records ever say is that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified. Thats it. 

John and Mark never mention the Jesus' talk with the thieves while Luke does and Matthew sorta-kinda does (Matthew says that they both scoff him while one of the thieves in Luke asks for Jesus to remember him in Heaven). As for the clothing, I believe the following should end this part of the argument: 
-Matthew (27:35) The soldiers cast lots for his clothing after they crucify him. 
-Mark (25:24) Same as the above although it is also mentioned in 25:17 that they put a purple cloak on him to mock him and then removed it before the crucifixion. 
-Luke (23:34) They cast lots for his clothing before crucifying him. ("God forgive them for they know not what they do" which isn't in the other three books.) 
-John (19:23) They only cast lots for his tunic, the rest they divide amongst themselves to which Jesus says "They parted my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots." (Sure different, isn't it?) 

And the above is only form the crucifixion. There are many more differences between the four books of the Gospel. Most notably are the happenings of Jesus' confrontation with Pilate. You yourself say that only John was the actual witness, then why should the other 3 books be believed? 

<<<The majority would miss the conversation that they either did not hear (because of a lower voice level), or were distracted about. They may also leave out a detail here or there if it is not important to the points they are making. There was a lot of activity going on around the cross, the women were crying, the crowds were yelling, the soldiers were doing there thing. A lot of details, some people tune out. Maybe while the thieves were scoffing, John was busy comforting the women. I don't know, but I don't buy that all witnesses remember the exact same things. It doesn't happen now, it didn't happen then.>>> 

The Psychology of memory states that extremely important events in a person's life are remembered in great detail, epically if there is a multitude of sensory input at the time. One is more likely to remember the events of a mob scene then the events at a small get-together even if the social implications are the same. If God can make them speak in tongues he could make them remember the crucifixion in detail.... Which they really didn't. 

<<<Please provide the source for both Polycarp and the first Pope. The Catholics believe Peter was the first pope, but I see no where is scripture where he claimed that title. So I don't buy that popes showed up that early.>>> 

Polycarp was not a warrior, pre se, but rather a radical of the mid to late 1st/early 2nd century. Like Irenaeus, Polycarp sought out to eradicate Gnosticism from the face of the planet. His and Irenaeus' preachings on Gnosticism paved the way for the destruction of many lives and ancient texts after their involvement with the new Catholic Church. See: http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/saintp13.htm for information on Polycarp and his Papal involvement. (The only problem with this link is that it claims that his martyrdom was well documented, which it wasn't. Originally being Russian Orthodox, I have heard much debate on this.) 

Pope Linus reigned 67-76 A.D. and is considered to be the first true Pope since St. Peter was only martyred in Rome (in other words, killed). Although Peter was around in Rome well before then (although there is no evidence to promote such a claim as stated by Britannica.com) if one considers him the first Pope and, because of this, the Church already had a good foothold in Italy. (In my personal opinion, the only reason the Romans went Christian at all was to make money and retain power. Constantine, who wasn't emperor for another 50 or so years, is a good example of this if you believe his story.) See: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm for a complete list of Popes. 



-The Mad Dr. Shock
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Al Kupone (Kupone)   7/9/2001 9:26 pm  
To:  StevenJn316   (70 of 80)  
 
  102.70 in reply to 102.67  
 
Your question is answered by Jesus himself as he predicted the Romans would overthrow Jerusalem and destroy the temple as a judgment upon them for rejecting their own Messiah when he came. 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= 

It was hardly a difficult prediction, though they did not rampage through Jerusalem just for that reason... if you'll note even the most simple of references such as I Claudius, more than a few people were declaring themselves to be the one to be brought by God and then using it to incite revolts... most of them didn't last too long anyway and the Romans were thinking they were getting uppity. 

Al Kupone
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   7/10/2001 8:06 am  
To:  Dr_Shock   (71 of 80)  
 
  102.71 in reply to 102.69  
 
>This makes absolutely no historical sense. Biblical sense, yes, but historical sense, no. Nor does the Bible mention where the Jews present at this preaching were from. The only references in Acts 2 are to, "Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jeruslaem" and "Men of Israel". Considering the average person of the time never went outside of a day's walk from the town of their birth, the idea that Greek Jews were present is highly doutful. 
Please read Acts 2:5-11 - this clearly indicates that Jew's from all over the world would be there. Pentecost was one of three holy days that required Jewish males to travel to Jerusalem. 

>If the soldiers were witnesses then why are they're no written manuscripts by Pilate or any of his men regarding the resurrection of Jesus? All the Roman records ever say is that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified. Thats it. 

Matthew indicates that they were paid off, but even that would not stop all from testifying. I don't have a "factual" reason for no manuscripts by Pilot, but of what benefit to Pilot would it be to make reference to the resurrection? If he could produce the body, which his soldiers were guarding, then Christianity would never have started. But then if his soldiers were guarding a body that disappearred or resurrected, then Pilot and the soldiers would have been in life threatening trouble for failing their duty. Good reason to keep the whole thing quiet. But purely speculation on my part. 

>And the above is only form the crucifixion. There are many more differences between the four books of the Gospel. Most notably are the happenings of Jesus' confrontation with Pilate. You yourself say that only John was the actual witness, then why should the other 3 books be believed? 

I said that John was a witness to the crucifiction. He was also a witness to the trial before the Jewish High Priest. The bible does not give a list of witnesses of the trial before Pilot, but any believing servant or soldier could have related the facts. 

Differences in the gospels are due to recollections of different witnesses and to the author's perceived importance of those details. What you don't see is one of the authors claiming Jesus was beheaded and another that he was shot threw with an arrow. They agree on the mode of his death, though the details of the six hours he hung on the cross vary. Detailing the events of six hours in a few paragraphs is a daunting task. Given that "paper" was hard to come by, when authors wrote, they wrote what they felt was most important. Guided by the Holy Spirit, they hit their mark. 

>The Psychology of memory states that extremely important events in a person's life are remembered in great detail, epically if there is a multitude of sensory input at the time. One is more likely to remember the events of a mob scene then the events at a small get-together even if the social implications are the same. If God can make them speak in tongues he could make them remember the crucifixion in detail.... Which they really didn't. 

I have been in four automobile accidents (from the ages of 16-20) where my life was in peril in each. I can remember some details, but do not fully remember all details. I do not remember what conversations I was having at the time. Nor do I remember my first action after initial impact. Nor could I recollect which side of the car I exited on three of them, though I drove for two. The point is that people do not remember all of the details. And even if they did, they may not relate them all, as they may not be essential to what is needed to be said. 

>Pope Linus reigned 67-76 A.D. and is considered to be the first true Pope since St. Peter was only martyred in Rome (in other words, killed). 

I understand who the Catholics claim as the first pope, I would be interested though in knowing when the first claim was made. Did Linus take that title on himself, or was he given it posthumously because he happened to be the Bishop at Rome and the bishop at Rome is the pope. I did look in the Catholic encyclopedia, but no mention of when the term pope first started being used is mentioned. 

That said, I don't believe the Catholic pope has a rightful leadership position of the church. I don't believe that the rock the church was built on was Peter (stone), but was the statement of Peter "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." If then choose to believe otherwise that is up to them. 

As to Polycarp, I don't believe he was that radical either, no more so then Paul or Peter or John. That may be a difference in the way you and I would view the term radical. Polycarp did speak against Gnosticism and did his teacher John. But you were the one who said Polycarp was a warrior and used the sword to convert people. Those claims amount to defemation of charactor without proof. 

I think we have set a record for civil conversation based on such opposing points of view. 

God's blessings 
Scott 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  StevenJn316   7/10/2001 8:46 am  
To:  Al Kupone (Kupone)   (72 of 80)  
 
  102.72 in reply to 102.70  
 
But within Jesus' prediction (since you seem to be allowing that he made a prophetic one) he stated that not one stone of the temple would be left upon another..which is exactly what happened as the temple (which was ORDERED not to be destroyed) caught fire and the gold began to melt within the stones and so a new order was given to take the temple apart stone by stone to get at any gold possible. 
These were huge stones (which you can see today if you go to Israel) and yet they were all removed as Jesus predicted. Hardly a simple prediction...
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Al Kupone (Kupone)   7/10/2001 1:44 pm  
To:  StevenJn316   (73 of 80)  
 
  102.73 in reply to 102.72  
 
But within Jesus' prediction (since you seem to be allowing that he made a prophetic one) he stated that not one stone of the temple would be left upon another..which is exactly what happened as the temple (which was ORDERED not to be destroyed) caught fire and the gold began to melt within the stones and so a new order was given to take the temple apart stone by stone to get at any gold possible. 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 

I am not arguing that Jesus was a Prophet, I'm arguing that he is not the messiah, unless you are willing to say that others who have had this gift that are of other religions are also given it by god because they are of him. 

Al Kupone
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Dr_Shock   7/10/2001 2:36 pm  
To:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   (74 of 80)  
 
  102.74 in reply to 102.71  
 
<<<Please read Acts 2:5-11 - this clearly indicates that Jew's from all over the world would be there. Pentecost was one of three holy days that required Jewish males to travel to Jerusalem.>>> 
In the Bible I'm using for this discussion is the "The New Oxford Annotated Bible With the Apocrypha, Revised Standard Ed." I didn't see anywhere in Acts 2:15-11 where it said that all Jewish males traveled to Jerusalem (although most of the probably made an effort to). However, there is mention that men from all over the known world were there, however Greece (and any of its old names) are not mentioned. The closest geographic area mentioned to Greece are Pamphylia which is still Turkey (Asia Minor) and the Cretans (from the Isle of Crete which wasn't Greek as of yet). It should be noted that the Cretans themselves were scorned by Paul for their acts of greed (Titus 1:12-13) and were considered pagans by the rest of the Christian world. 

Most of the listed areas close to Greece are from peoples/empires which had participated in eairly wars with Greeks. All of the mentioned places are areas of the world where the Jews had a good social foothold. They're all in central Turkey, Middle East or Northern Africa. 

<<< but of what benefit to Pilot would it be to make reference to the resurrection?>>> 

I personally think Pilate was sick of the whole ordeal by this time. This is probably why he relinquished Jesus' body to Joseph of Aeramethia (sp?) for burial. Remember, in one of the Gosples Pilate wishes to stop the crucifixion, but the Jews convince him otherwise. 

<<<I said that John was a witness to the crucifixion. He was also a witness to the trial before the Jewish High Priest. The bible does not give a list of witnesses of the trial before Pilot, but any believing servant or soldier could have related the facts.>>> 

Does this make John the only eyewitness account, then? 

<<<I have been in four automobile accidents (from the ages of 16-20) where my life was in peril in each. I can remember some details, but do not fully remember all details.>>> 

Thats a bit different from a mob or riot scene. With the accidents you were probably just driving along and then WHAM! (I know, I was in an accident with my fianc last week). When driving a car, you usually don't have people screaming, throwing things and carrying torches. Nor are you outside subjected to abnormal temperatures or wind. And, most importantly, the trauma of the event isn't being done directly to you. This is the reason why most instigators of mobs and riots are apprehended. Everyone remembers where they were and what they were doing. 

<<<I understand who the Catholics claim as the first pope, I would be interested though in knowing when the first claim was made. Did Linus take that title on himself, or was he given it posthumously because he happened to be the Bishop at Rome and the bishop at Rome is the pope. I did look in the Catholic encyclopedia, but no mention of when the term pope first started being used is mentioned.>>> 

Linus was elected as the first "leader of the Church" after John by a bunch of other Church heads (including Polycarp and some other mentioned in this discussion) according to the Catholics. The term "Pope" (a Latin word evolved from "Papa" which is from the Greek word "Pappas") didn't come around until the Popes started being of Italian decent rather than Greek (this didn't happen for another 150 years or so). The words "Pope", "Papa" and "Pappas" themselves only mean "father". They probably referred to Linus as "Pappas Linus", just as most people today call a priest "Father (whoever)". 

<<<As to Polycarp, I don't believe he was that radical either, no more so then Paul or Peter or John. That may be a difference in the way you and I would view the term radical. Polycarp did speak against Gnosticism and did his teacher John. But you were the one who said Polycarp was a warrior and used the sword to convert people. Those claims amount to defemation of charactor without proof.>>> 

Somewhere on the world wide web, I had ran across a page depicting the early life of Polycarp in which it was stated that he was a warrior of God for a short peroid in his life. Later, he repented for his actions and became EXTREMELY peaceful. I tried not to pursue this route any further in my posts because I couldn't find the @#$% link again (this is what I get for using Google). If I do find it, I'll post it. 

There was an account (on the page mentioned above) of his encounter with some Gnostics in Asia minor in which they said something to the effect of, "We believe in God. Recognize us as Christians, Polycarp." To which he replied, "I recognize you. I recognize the face of Satan." And then proceeded to burn their manuscripts and kill (or have killed by others) a few as examples for their heresy. 

<<<I think we have set a record for civil conversation based on such opposing points of view.>>> 

I think we have, as well. Can't we all just get along? =) 



-The Mad Dr. Shock
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  StevenJn316   7/10/2001 2:42 pm  
To:  Al Kupone (Kupone)   (75 of 80)  
 
  102.75 in reply to 102.73  
 
<<I am not arguing that Jesus was a Prophet, I'm arguing that he is not the messiah, unless you are willing to say that others who have had this gift that are of other religions are also given it by god because they are of him.>> 
I thought you said earlier his temple prediction was pretty obvious given the times and Roman hostility. I am glad to see you admit he is a prophet. 

Now, are you asking above that if I say there have been other prophets in other religions then you will agree Jesus is the Messiah??? 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   7/10/2001 3:07 pm  
To:  Dr_Shock   (76 of 80)  
 
  102.76 in reply to 102.74  
 
>Most of the listed areas close to Greece are from peoples/empires which had participated in eairly wars with Greeks. All of the mentioned places are areas of the world where the Jews had a good social foothold. They're all in central Turkey, Middle East or Northern Africa. 
All of areas were either conquored by Alexander the Great or were part of his four generals who took over the various areas on his death. They brought both Greek culture and Greek language to those areas. Greek became the language of business so to speak. As such, it would be natural to use that language in order to get the message across to the most people. 

If you want to do the same just a few years ago, you would start in english, because english is usually the first or second language of most people worldwide. Now today, we have computers, and can more quickly translate to other languages. Back then, they not only did not have computers, but "paper" was hard to come by and valuable. If you look at the audiences of Paul's letters (for instance) they are directed to churches in Italy, Greece, Macedonia, and Asia (Modern Turkey). It would be natural to write all of those in Greek. Paul probably spoke Greek anyway (along with Aramaic and Hebrew), but even he used scribes. John wrote most of his works late in life, at Ephesus, so by that time he probably spoke the language as well. Luke of course was Greek, so that leaves James, Peter, Jude, Matthew, and Mark. If Peter was ministering in Italy (even as a visit) he would have needed to know Greek (or have an interpretor). Mark traveled with Paul and Barnabas to Greek speaking areas, so he may have known the language as well. The audiences of most of the books seem directed to churches in the west. Remember, the NT wasn't all written in A.D.33, but the book's trickled out over the next 60+ years. 

>I personally think Pilate was sick of the whole ordeal by this time. This is probably why he relinquished Jesus' body to Joseph of Aeramethia (sp?) for burial. Remember, in one of the Gosples Pilate wishes to stop the crucifixion, but the Jews convince him otherwise. 

He probably was, he probably agree to crucify Jesus in order to try to bring peace to the area and bring Jews in as loyal Roman citizens. His compromise failed. 

>Does this make John the only eyewitness account, then? 

Maybe. It does make him the only known eyewitness to actually write about it. Luke was off in Greece still, so his reports are based on investigation and interviews. Mark may have been a lurker, it is speculated that it is he that was the naked lad to run off in the garden on the night of Jesus' betrayal (Mark 14:51-52). Matthew also could have been at the crucifiction, as he was in the area, but I have my doubts. Mark 14:50 indicates that all of the disciples fled when Jesus was arrested, and only two show up around trial (Peter and John). 

Your explanation of the origin of the word Pope sounds good, I plan on asking the question on a Catholic forum. I am still curious as to when that term started being used exclusively for the bishop of Rome, as that is probably near the time when the Catholic church actually started, as opposed to there being a church in general. 

It would not suprise me that some early Christians (especially converted soldiers) would use force for conversions. But, if as you say Polycarp changed, then that to me shows the work of the Holy Spirit in a life. Changes are not always instananeous for new believers, so things take years (due to our own stubborness). 

Polycarp did have strong words for Gnostics, again I haven't seen any reference to a physical confrontation between the groups. I though, must state, that John himself called them anti-christs (I John 2:18-22), and since Polycarp was his disciple, it would stand to reason that their views were similar. But did it lead to physical confrontation? I don't know. 

God's blessings 
Scott 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Al Kupone (Kupone)   7/10/2001 7:12 pm  
To:  StevenJn316   (77 of 80)  
 
  102.77 in reply to 102.75  
 
I thought you said earlier his temple prediction was pretty obvious given the times and Roman hostility. I am glad to see you admit he is a prophet. 
Now, are you asking above that if I say there have been other prophets in other religions then you will agree Jesus is the Messiah??? 

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= 

I said that that specific prophecy was not a difficult guess, I will admit Jesus was a prophet and a follower of a system known as Kabalah (Spelling really doesn't matter there) as pretty much everything he did is outlined in one of the many books. 

If you want more information, do what I did, research a lot, go to a Rabbi who is willing to take on a student and prepare to bust your butt for a long long time. Kabalah is Magic given unto man by God. Jesus cured some people and played with Necromancy, that doens't make him the messiah. Heck, we have another Rabbi who made clay alive as though it were flesh (The Golem), I don't see anywhere that Jesus did that, just God. 

Al Kupone
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Dr_Shock   7/10/2001 7:30 pm  
To:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   (78 of 80)  
 
  102.78 in reply to 102.76  
 
<<<All of areas were either conquored by Alexander the Great or were part of his four generals who took over the various areas on his death. They brought both Greek culture and Greek language to those areas. Greek became the language of business so to speak. As such, it would be natural to use that language in order to get the message across to the most people.>>> 
But the main language of the known world at the time of Jesus was Latin because Rome did the same thing the Greeks did. Nobody (for some odd, unknown reason to me) ever stops to think that perhaps the original NT was written in Latin and then later translated to Greek. Both the Apostles and Jesus would have been exposed to Latin much more than they would have Greek. After all, most of the witnesses, social influence, etc was from Rome. However, there has never been any evidence to support this claim... Though I have heard stories that the Vatican keeps some rather important stuff locked away in their vaults. Guess we'll never know. 

<<<Maybe. It does make him the only known eyewitness to actually write about it. Luke was off in Greece still, so his reports are based on investigation and interviews. Mark may have been a lurker, it is speculated that it is he that was the naked lad to run off in the garden on the night of Jesus' betrayal (Mark 14:51-52). Matthew also could have been at the crucifiction, as he was in the area, but I have my doubts. Mark 14:50 indicates that all of the disciples fled when Jesus was arrested, and only two show up around trial (Peter and John).>>> 

That would then make John's account the most reliable. Makes sense since John was also sorta-kinda the favorite of Jesus. 

<<<Your explanation of the origin of the word Pope sounds good, I plan on asking the question on a Catholic forum. I am still curious as to when that term started being used exclusively for the bishop of Rome, as that is probably near the time when the Catholic church actually started, as opposed to there being a church in general.>>> 

I believe "Pope" was first used around 400 A.D. Best to ask the Catholics, though (although they might not know either). Britannica.com I think covers the origin of the Papacy rather well, however I haven't looked at the article in a WAAAAAAAAAAAAY long time. 

<<<It would not suprise me that some early Christians (especially converted soldiers) would use force for conversions. But, if as you say Polycarp changed, then that to me shows the work of the Holy Spirit in a life. Changes are not always instananeous for new believers, so things take years (due to our own stubborness).>>> 

Polycarp was raised Christian by a lady who bought him as a slave. I think Polycarp's early exploits were, perhaps, more the actions of an overzealous youth who grew out of his hormonal phase later in life. Young people do some pretty stupid things. (I know, I'm only 20.) 

<<<Polycarp did have strong words for Gnostics, again I haven't seen any reference to a physical confrontation between the groups. I though, must state, that John himself called them anti-christs (I John 2:18-22), and since Polycarp was his disciple, it would stand to reason that their views were similar. But did it lead to physical confrontation? I don't know.>>> 

I always wondered what the early church had against the Gnostics since they were peaceful and kept to themselves. Most Gnostic texts, while perhaps not "authentic", also preserve many of the ethical concepts of the Bible (especially the Book of Thomas and the Book of Mary). Also, the Church really didn't have the political or social power to wage a good spiritual war on the Gnostics peoples for another 250 years. They also didn't know how many Gnostics were in existence. Why the Church would start a mission with such a high possible rate of failure is beyond me. But then again, they did fail for the most part because copies of most of the texts were found in the Nag Hamaddi (sp?) scrolls (which scholars had thought to be completely extinct). This is the main reason the Gnostics survived to this day. Having met many Gnostics in my time, I don't understand why many Christians, both modern and antique, have such a problem with them. 



-The Mad Dr. Shock
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   7/10/2001 8:20 pm  
To:  Dr_Shock   (79 of 80)  
 
  102.79 in reply to 102.78  
 
>But the main language of the known world at the time of Jesus was Latin because Rome did the same thing the Greeks did. Nobody (for some odd, unknown reason to me) ever stops to think that perhaps the original NT was written in Latin and then later translated to Greek. Both the Apostles and Jesus would have been exposed to Latin much more than they would have Greek. After all, most of the witnesses, social influence, etc was from Rome. However, there has never been any evidence to support this claim... Though I have heard stories that the Vatican keeps some rather important stuff locked away in their vaults. Guess we'll never know. 
Rome was notorious for "stealing" other peoples culture. That is one reason why their gods were the same gods as the Greeks Zues=Jupiter, etc. The took Greek culture for themselves. Latin was spoken in and around Rome, but the Romans didn't care about teaching everyone their language when they all seemed to know Greek already. 

If aliens actually existed and invaded earth, what would be more efficient, enforcing their language on us, or using the most common language spoken? It would be the same type of principle back then. 

If the term pope was actually not used until around the 400's, then in truth, the Catholic church did not start til then. Christianity predates the catholic church though the term first used by followers of Christ was "The Way." The word Christian started as a pejurivative term. 

The Gnostics denied that Christ came in the flesh and that He actually died for our sins. They felt that the spirit was completely seperate from the flesh, and so that it did not matter what anyone did in the flesh. That teaching was very much at odds with what Jesus taught, it was heresy. Whether modern Gnostics teach this, I don't know. 

I both admire and cringe at the zeolousness of youth. I wish us older folks (I'm 36) had a touch more of it, and that the younger had a touch more wisdom that comes with age. 

God's blessings 
Scott
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


   From:  Dr_Shock   7/10/2001 10:28 pm  
To:  BenRDeemed (ScottR1982)   (80 of 80)  
 
  102.80 in reply to 102.79  
 
<<<Rome was notorious for "stealing" other peoples culture. That is one reason why their gods were the same gods as the Greeks Zues=Jupiter, etc. The took Greek culture for themselves. Latin was spoken in and around Rome, but the Romans didn't care about teaching everyone their language when they all seemed to know Greek already.>>> 
I'm sure that most Romans in the Middle East of the time would at least speak Latin to one another. Most people in Rome were educated but not necessarily in a second language. Greek would probably be the first choice, however. Even then, all you're probably going to have floating around the area around the Dead Sea would be various dialects of Latin, Hebrew, Aramaic, etc, with some Greek that would be very hard to discern from "real" Greek. Similarly to how Spanish spoken by Mexicans and Spanish spoken by the Spanish differ. Or (better example) the English we speak here in the US vs. the English they speak in Great Britain. Although the language is the same, some people in the US have a hard time understanding the British (because of pronunciation, accent, word usage, slang, etc). 

<<<If the term pope was actually not used until around the 400's, then in truth, the Catholic church did not start til then. Christianity predates the catholic church though the term first used by followers of Christ was "The Way." The word Christian started as a pejurivative term.>>> 

But the Catholic Church didn't really start in Italy, either. Most of its origins trace back to Greece. I'd say that the Church of Rome actually started with Constantine since he was the first Holy Roman Emperor. 

<<<The Gnostics denied that Christ came in the flesh and that He actually died for our sins. They felt that the spirit was completely seperate from the flesh, and so that it did not matter what anyone did in the flesh. That teaching was very much at odds with what Jesus taught, it was heresy. Whether modern Gnostics teach this, I don't know.>>> 

Modern Gnostics are a wide range of people. Some believe traditionally while others believe that Jesus' death really happened but that it was significant to the spirit only. Some believe the same way mainstream Christians do but with the Gnostic Texts added into the Bible. 



-The Mad Dr. Shock
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit  
 
