Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 02-13-2012, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

I am asking a specific contextual question as to why GJohn did not include this event if he had access to any of the other epistles which DO contain it. If it is likely that GJohn did see the one or more of the other gospels, then the only other option would be that he did not accept the reliability of this story or had other sources that he relied on that did not include it, and he preferred them.

Where are you getting this strange idea that there were separate "sources?" or that any gospel writer cared about "reliability" as if he were a critical historian?

The most probable sources for the gospels are 1) spiritual revelations from channeled entities and 2) the writer's imagination - which may be hard to distinguish.

Duvduv · 02-13-2012, 09:36 AM

You make a valid point, Toto. But if these writers were "careful" enough to rely on another gospel for their own version of their Christ for their audiences, then presumably they were trying to get it "right." Otherwise we would see competing gospels about a messianic figure called Larry the son of the Virgin Jessica who was pre-announced by Steve the Baptist in Utah, and executed an electric chair execution in Toledo Spain with epistles written by Stanley the Apostle to his followers, such as the Epistle to the Moscovites or Epistle to the Koreans.

I am being humorous but I think you get the idea of what I am driving at.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

I am asking a specific contextual question as to why GJohn did not include this event if he had access to any of the other epistles which DO contain it. If it is likely that GJohn did see the one or more of the other gospels, then the only other option would be that he did not accept the reliability of this story or had other sources that he relied on that did not include it, and he preferred them.

Where are you getting this strange idea that there were separate "sources?" or that any gospel writer cared about "reliability" as if he were a critical historian?

The most probable sources for the gospels are 1) spiritual revelations from channeled entities and 2) the writer's imagination - which may be hard to distinguish.

Toto · 02-13-2012, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

You make a valid point, Toto. But if these writers were "careful" enough to rely on another gospel for their own version of their Christ for their audiences, then presumably they were trying to get it "right." Otherwise we would see competing gospels about a messianic figure called Larry the son of the Virgin Jessica who was pre-announced by Steve the Baptist in Utah, and executed an electric chair execution in Toledo Spain with epistles written by Stanley the Apostle to his followers, such as the Epistle to the Moscovites or Epistle to the Koreans.

I am being humorous but I think you get the idea of what I am driving at.

You are employing comic exaggeration that shows you have missed the point.

The gospel writers were not careful - they were primarily plagiarists. And there are competing gospels that are at greater variance that the ones that made it into the canon.

sotto voce · 02-13-2012, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The most probable sources for the gospels are 1) spiritual revelations from channeled entities and 2) the writer's imagination - which may be hard to distinguish.

It's difficult to envisage how a genuine revelation can be indistinguishable from mundane thoughts.

Chili · 02-13-2012, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Your assertion is ERRONEOUS. Paul did claim the resurrected Jesus was SEEN by him.
1Cor. 15

Quote:

8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time....

Due time means in God's time and so "by God and not man's willing it or carnal desire, so it may 'look good on you too' as per John 1:13.

Now, there is ZERO requirement, absolute ZERO requirement, for me to believe the Pauline writings in order to present the written evidence, the written statements found in the Pauline letters.

We have the Pauline letters and there are written statements which show that Paul claimed that there were Post-Resurrection Visits by Jesus who was Raised from the dead.

We have the Pauline list and chronology of SIX Post-Resurrection Visits of Jesus who was RAISED from the dead.

1 Cor. 15

Quote:

3 ...... he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once.....

7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time....

The Pauline writer even suggested that he be called a FALSE WITNESS if the Dead Rise Not.
1 Cor. 15

Quote:

....we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up , if so be that the dead rise not.

This is a very simple sequence of events during illumination wherein he testifies that Christ was raised as the mind of God and Lord God. So the fact that you deny what he saw ony means that it was an archetypal event that will be the same for all, and thus only one way to heaven wherein the believer is testimony as witness himself, and will see the same and even today, shall see, or it would not be archetypal that way.

To rise on the third day just means to be busy to sort out what to keep and what not so that heaven will be the place you ought to be when you get out, and not back to purgatory you go to get purified some more, so indeed he was Peter the rock and could testify to him as the faith that Jesus had.

Then the 500 years designates midway in depth of the Thousand Year Reign of God within, so this guy went into his own soul for 500 years back (whether you like it or not).

And of course when 'right' is known wrong will be seen, and so James sticks out like a 'sore thumb' immediatly so that right may be confirmed to be true.

And then to say "in God's own time" just means 'well done' and not like those who 'rushed to the conclusion' and received a scorpion instead.

Chili · 02-13-2012, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

I am asking a specific contextual question as to why GJohn did not include this event if he had access to any of the other epistles which DO contain it. If it is likely that GJohn did see the one or more of the other gospels, then the only other option would be that he did not accept the reliability of this story or had other sources that he relied on that did not include it, and he preferred them.

It is the same story I said, called the Hight Priest Prayer in John 17 where he validates the Consecration event that enables the memorial to follow and so is transubstantiation in effect. And notice it includes a recognition first, then the command to the disciples and concludes with the pardon on behalf of the believers in the pew so they may partake in the source of divine love itself.

Adam · 02-13-2012, 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

I am asking a specific contextual question as to why GJohn did not include this event if he had access to any of the other epistles which DO contain it. If it is likely that GJohn did see the one or more of the other gospels, then the only other option would be that he did not accept the reliability of this story or had other sources that he relied on that did not include it, and he preferred them.

That's what I've been saying from the start (in my OP and my thread Gospel Eyewitnesses that now has over 600 posts), that the original version of the Passion Narrative did not include the institution of the Eucharist. Most recently I have stated in Post #17 of Biblical Texts Earlier than Thought: http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=311535

we must find some place in the gospels where an individual starts from his own knowledge. This point occurs in John 12 where Jesus comes for dinner to Bethany in the home of Mary and Martha and (and apparently also of John Mark). The Passion Narrative is widely recognized as the written source underlying the gospels, but the writer has to have known Jesus from earlier to be among his followers in what occurs in John 18 and 19.

Scholars agree that the Passion Narrative was written first (it's in all four gospels). I have shown that the gJohn version is the most primitive and disproves the Mythical Jesus theory.

Adam · 02-13-2012, 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

I am asking a specific contextual question as to why GJohn did not include this event if he had access to any of the other epistles which DO contain it. If it is likely that GJohn did see the one or more of the other gospels, then the only other option would be that he did not accept the reliability of this story or had other sources that he relied on that did not include it, and he preferred them.

Where are you getting this strange idea that there were separate "sources?" or that any gospel writer cared about "reliability" as if he were a critical historian?

Maybe he read my Gospel Eyewitnesses thread? Over 600 posts about these very sources, of which I stated three were from eyewitnesses in the Gospel of John alone? See my OP latter section for "starters"
http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=306983

Toto · 02-13-2012, 11:56 PM

Not all scholars --

Passion Narrative

Quote:

The existence of a pre-Markan passion narrative has been challenged. The assumption of a pre-Markan passion narrative has been undermined by studies that aim to show that the final three chapters of Mark contain themes developed throughout the Gospel. In The Passion in Mark (or via: amazon.co.uk), Donahue, Robbins, Kelber, Perrin, Dewey, Weeden, and Crossan interpret the passion narrative with the use of "hermeneutical clues" provided in the first thirteen chapters. (p. 153) Kelber states the conclusion to be drawn: "The understanding of Mk 14-16 as a theologically integral part of the Mkan Gospel calls into question the classic form critical thesis concerning an independent and coherent Passion Narrative prior to Mk. Thematically, it is difficult to identify a major non-Mkan thrust or theme in Mk 14-16, let alone extrapolate a coherent pre-Mkan source." (op. cit., p. 157)

Toto · 02-13-2012, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Where are you getting this strange idea that there were separate "sources?" or that any gospel writer cared about "reliability" as if he were a critical historian?

Maybe he read my Gospel Eyewitnesses thread? Over 600 posts about these very sources, of which I stated three were from eyewitnesses in the Gospel of John alone? See my OP for "starters"
http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=306983

I doubt that he read that thread, or that he would have been persuaded by it.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.