Christian Conservatives

[Chizzang]

No "They" don't Joe...
You do - and the Catholic Church does - but "most experts" don't believe John wrote a damn thing

Here is a question for you, smart boy. What are your reasons for denying John's actual authorship of the Gospel of John and 1 John?

And why was John universally accepted as the author for nearly 2,000, only to have his authorship challenged in recent times?

Because when all this "scholarship" is boiled down to its essence, the only reason they have for denying John's authorship is that no eyewitness would record Jesus asserting his divinity, well, because, Jesus wasn't divine so he wouldn't have said that. So therefore, John didn't really hear these things. And thus John wouldn't have written these things. The case for denying John's authorship, really first advanced in modern times, is extreme circular reasoning, and treats credible historical sources, accepted for 19 centuries, as without value.

And everything else is speculation and supposition that ignores the recording of early historians that John lived the longest life of the Apostles and settled at Ephesus. Keep in mind that, by 90 A.D. -- the approximate date of the actual writing of John -- John was likely about 80 years old. As the last surviving Apostle (all others for the most part had been rounded up and executed), John was a VERY wanted man by the Roman Empire. Thus, his whereabouts and identity, given his stature as the last known eyewitness to Christ, were strictly guarded secrets. In order to protect his identity, should the writing fall into the hands of the Empire, his Gospel refers to him as the "disciple that Jesus loved," an attribution that would be confusing to authorities, but readily understood by the faithful to refer to John as the "eyewitness" identified in 19:35. Credible historians writing in the times most proximate to the authorship of the Gospel never questioned that John was the actual author of the text. Now modern scholars, ignoring the obvious reasons why John's identity would have only been only discreetly revealed, claim that the reference to the "disciple Jesus loved" is ambiguous -- an assertion that only makes sense if you ignore the historical time and context in which the book was written (which modern scholars do).

And explicitly as to whether John could have possessed the ability to write in Greek, you should note that in Acts 4:30, both John and Peter are called uneducated (and presumably illiterate, since the Greek term implies a lack of literacy), but they marvel civil and religious leaders, who are interrogating them, with their ability to communicate in the manner of educated men. Further, Acts Chapter 2 records an event in which they speak and converse in foreign languages.

That's a lot of words Joe...
Here I'll give you the short version
For years Christians have been saying John wrote John
Faithful Christian experts on Christianity
Yes indeed

And no, John couldn't read or write Greek
Nobody even pretends to argue that anymore except Christians defending Christianity

Ultimately
It's not really worth debating because it's your faith Joe
You get to believe whatever you want...
you don't need to convince me that you have complete faith - I am well aware

[89Hen]

And no, John couldn't read or write Greek
Nobody even pretends to argue that anymore except Christians defending Christianity

[Bisonfanatical]

This debate about the divinity of this man-made "Christ" as defined by a Pagan integrated Universal Roman Church is actually quite humorous in a tragic sort of way.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

There's no debate. Joe likes to come on here, act like he speaks infallibly on church doctrine and history and ignores others.

I see this.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[JoltinJoe]

But you suggested that the Council of Nicea was called to debate over Arianism. That is not the case. It was called specifically to reaffirm existing doctrine that it was a heresy -- not to discuss its merits. You wrote:



The answer to that question is no; that issue was resolved more than two centuries earlier.

Objection, counselor. Speculation. (Did I get that right?)
No where did I suggest Constantine called the CoN to debate the merits of the heresy. I didn't suggest it. Arius was teaching that Jesus was more human than divine. This troubled Constantine so the CoN was called.

The problem that Constantine expected the bishops to solve was the dispute over Arianism.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/histor ... nicea.html

Council of Nicaea, (325), the first ecumenical council of the Christian church, meeting in ancient Nicaea (now İznik, Tur.). It was called by the emperor Constantine I, an unbaptized catechumen, or neophyte, who presided over the opening session and took part in the discussions. He hoped a general council of the church would solve the problem created in the Eastern church by Arianism,

https://www.britannica.com/event/Counci ... ianity-325

First Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church, held in 325 on the occasion of the heresy of Arius (Arianism).

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm


You're also ignoring something, and again, are trying to lecture us like we're beneath you. The Church believed Jesus to be divine...however when an Egyptian priest starts teaching the opposite it caused enough problems that it required attention.

You are missing the point. Arianism posed a political threat to Constantine, because he feared it would lead to a rift that would divide the Empire. Certainly the Council addressed this issue, but not to "decide" whether Christ was a divine. That was already accepted orthodoxy. The point of the Council was to collectively declare that any teaching to the contrary was a heresy.

I always love how you try to dismiss what I say by posing that I'm speaking like "we're beneath you." I am simply trying to point you to new, more comprehensive sources that show that your characterizations are simplified. Arianism had no more chance of prevailing at the Council of Nicea than Nancy Pelosi would currently have if she switched parties and sought a new election for Speaker of the House. I have often posted links to Yale University courses and lectures -- certainly not a "Catholic" source -- to support my more nuanced and comprehensive characterizations of what transpired in the early Church. Have you ever clicked on one of those links and followed the lecture? Or will you continue to provide citations to sites on the internet?

Finally, it is not speculation to say that it was established Church orthodoxy, before the close of the first century, that Christ was divine. John's Gospel arrives on the scene around 90 A.D. It is impossible to read that Gospel without coming to the understanding that the Gospel was instructing that Jesus was divine. Indeed, the number of times Jesus responds to questions by saying, "I am" -- instilling shock in the listeners -- is intended to show that, in answering questions about his identity, Jesus was using a play on words to claim the name of God as his identity. ("I am" = "Yahweh").

Here is an example from John where Jesus uses the name "Yahweh," or "I am," to identify himself. In the original Greek, Jesus' response, "I am," appeared as the word: "Γιαχβέ." And that word also translates as "Yahweh." [Comments in brackets are my commentary].

3Then Judas, having received a detachment of troops, and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, came there with lanterns, torches, and weapons. 4 Jesus therefore, knowing all things that would come upon Him, went forward and said to them, “Whom are you seeking?”

5 They answered Him, “Jesus of Nazareth.”

Jesus said to them, “I am He” ["Γιαχβέ"]. And Judas, who betrayed Him, also stood with them. 6 Now when He said to them, “I am He,” they drew back and fell to the ground. [This is because Jesus had just spoken the name of God].

7 Then He asked them again, “Whom are you seeking?”

And they said, “Jesus of Nazareth.”

8 Jesus answered, “I have told you that I am He. Therefore, if you seek Me, let these go their way,” 9 that the saying might be fulfilled which He spoke, “Of those whom You gave Me I have lost none.”

The clear import of the original Greek was that, in answering this question, Jesus was not only asserting that he was Jesus of Nazareth, but that he was also asserting that he was "Γιαχβέ." In other words, Jesus of Nazareth was "Γιαχβέ." You can review the Gospel of John on your own, and see how many times Jesus responds to inquiries about his identity by responding, "I am." And then note how the listeners are said to react.

Whether you accept Jesus as divine is a matter of faith. However, that the Church has taken that position (rightly or wrongly) since the first century is a matter of demonstrable historical fact.

[JoltinJoe]

Here is a question for you, smart boy. What are your reasons for denying John's actual authorship of the Gospel of John and 1 John?

And why was John universally accepted as the author for nearly 2,000, only to have his authorship challenged in recent times?

Because when all this "scholarship" is boiled down to its essence, the only reason they have for denying John's authorship is that no eyewitness would record Jesus asserting his divinity, well, because, Jesus wasn't divine so he wouldn't have said that. So therefore, John didn't really hear these things. And thus John wouldn't have written these things. The case for denying John's authorship, really first advanced in modern times, is extreme circular reasoning, and treats credible historical sources, accepted for 19 centuries, as without value.

And everything else is speculation and supposition that ignores the recording of early historians that John lived the longest life of the Apostles and settled at Ephesus. Keep in mind that, by 90 A.D. -- the approximate date of the actual writing of John -- John was likely about 80 years old. As the last surviving Apostle (all others for the most part had been rounded up and executed), John was a VERY wanted man by the Roman Empire. Thus, his whereabouts and identity, given his stature as the last known eyewitness to Christ, were strictly guarded secrets. In order to protect his identity, should the writing fall into the hands of the Empire, his Gospel refers to him as the "disciple that Jesus loved," an attribution that would be confusing to authorities, but readily understood by the faithful to refer to John as the "eyewitness" identified in 19:35. Credible historians writing in the times most proximate to the authorship of the Gospel never questioned that John was the actual author of the text. Now modern scholars, ignoring the obvious reasons why John's identity would have only been only discreetly revealed, claim that the reference to the "disciple Jesus loved" is ambiguous -- an assertion that only makes sense if you ignore the historical time and context in which the book was written (which modern scholars do).

And explicitly as to whether John could have possessed the ability to write in Greek, you should note that in Acts 4:30, both John and Peter are called uneducated (and presumably illiterate, since the Greek term implies a lack of literacy), but they marvel civil and religious leaders, who are interrogating them, with their ability to communicate in the manner of educated men. Further, Acts Chapter 2 records an event in which they speak and converse in foreign languages.

That's a lot of words Joe...
Here I'll give you the short version
For years Christians have been saying John wrote John
Faithful Christian experts on Christianity
Yes indeed

And no, John couldn't read or write Greek
Nobody even pretends to argue that anymore except Christians defending Christianity

Ultimately
It's not really worth debating because it's your faith Joe
You get to believe whatever you want...
you don't need to convince me that you have complete faith - I am well aware

Got it. I asked for your reasons to deny that John wrote the Gospel attributed to him. And you don't really have any good ones.

Yes, I wrote a lot of words. Complex ideas require the use of words, sometimes many words.

Simple, reflexive reasoning employs use of the "short version." Thanks for the "short version."

[Chizzang]

That's a lot of words Joe...
Here I'll give you the short version
For years Christians have been saying John wrote John
Faithful Christian experts on Christianity
Yes indeed

And no, John couldn't read or write Greek
Nobody even pretends to argue that anymore except Christians defending Christianity

Ultimately
It's not really worth debating because it's your faith Joe
You get to believe whatever you want...
you don't need to convince me that you have complete faith - I am well aware

Got it. I asked for your reasons to deny that John wrote the Gospel attributed to him. And you don't really have any good ones.

Yes, I wrote a lot of words. Complex ideas require the use of words, sometimes many words.

Simple, reflexive reasoning employs use of the "short version." Thanks for the "short version."

I'll stick with occam's razor
You can keep your desperate overly complex apologetics

[JoltinJoe]

Got it. I asked for your reasons to deny that John wrote the Gospel attributed to him. And you don't really have any good ones.

Yes, I wrote a lot of words. Complex ideas require the use of words, sometimes many words.

Simple, reflexive reasoning employs use of the "short version." Thanks for the "short version."

I'll stick with occam's razor
You can keep your desperate overly complex apologetics

Good. Stick with Occam's Razor. Who needs educamation* when you have Occam's Razor?

The great thing about Occam's Razor is that people who invoke it seldom really understand it. Did you know Occam was a Franciscan friar?

(* misspelling intended for humorous effect).

(BTW, perhaps the simplest explanation why billions of people, over the course of 2,000 years, have believed that a being was divine is, because, that being was divine? Look how few assumptions I needed to make there!)

[kalm]

That's a lot of words Joe...
Here I'll give you the short version
For years Christians have been saying John wrote John
Faithful Christian experts on Christianity
Yes indeed

And no, John couldn't read or write Greek
Nobody even pretends to argue that anymore except Christians defending Christianity

Ultimately
It's not really worth debating because it's your faith Joe
You get to believe whatever you want...
you don't need to convince me that you have complete faith - I am well aware

Got it. I asked for your reasons to deny that John wrote the Gospel attributed to him. And you don't really have any good ones.

Yes, I wrote a lot of words. Complex ideas require the use of words, sometimes many words.

Simple, reflexive reasoning employs use of the "short version." Thanks for the "short version."

Complexity is often used to hide weak arguments.

What's so complex about love?

I like the simple Jesus like the Lutheran pastor in the OP. He's much more user friendly.

[JoltinJoe]

Complexity is often used to hide weak arguments.

So are cliches.

If you want to attack my argument as weak, go ahead and do it, and explain why. But don't hide behind a cliche.

[Chizzang]

I'll stick with occam's razor
You can keep your desperate overly complex apologetics

Good. Stick with Occam's Razor. Who needs educamation* when you have Occam's Razor?

The great thing about Occam's Razor is that people who invoke it seldom really understand it. Did you know Occam was a Franciscan friar?

(* misspelling intended for humorous effect).

This is ^ irrelevant...
Why wouldn't I accept a large group of scholars
It's not like I'm fabricating an argument out of thin air Joe

And why in the world would you care what I think about the scriptures of your faith..?
The beauty of faith Joe, is it requires no defense
and those who would spend time defending it weaken it's appeal

I agree with the majority of scholars who don't think John wrote John... So what

[Ibanez]

Objection, counselor. Speculation. (Did I get that right?)
No where did I suggest Constantine called the CoN to debate the merits of the heresy. I didn't suggest it. Arius was teaching that Jesus was more human than divine. This troubled Constantine so the CoN was called.


http://www.christianitytoday.com/histor ... nicea.html


https://www.britannica.com/event/Counci ... ianity-325


http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm


You're also ignoring something, and again, are trying to lecture us like we're beneath you. The Church believed Jesus to be divine...however when an Egyptian priest starts teaching the opposite it caused enough problems that it required attention.

You are missing the point. Arianism posed a political threat to Constantine, because he feared it would lead to a rift that would divide the Empire. Certainly the Council addressed this issue, but not to "decide" whether Christ was a divine. That was already accepted orthodoxy. The point of the Council was to collectively declare that any teaching to the contrary was a heresy.



Finally, it is not speculation to say that it was established Church orthodoxy, before the close of the first century, that Christ was divine. John's Gospel arrives on the scene around 90 A.D. It is impossible to read that Gospel without coming to the understanding that the Gospel was instructing that Jesus was divine. Indeed, the number of times Jesus responds to questions by saying, "I am" -- instilling shock in the listeners -- is intended to show that, in answering questions about his identity, Jesus was using a play on words to claim the name of God as his identity. ("I am" = "Yahweh").

Oh for fucks sake.

Learn to read Joe. I didn't say that, nor did I suggest or explicitly or implicitly imply it.
When I said 'Speculation" it was in regards to your statement that I suggested CoN was called to debate Arianism. When I said, "

Wasn't the purpose to discuss his divinity vs his humanity?

I didn't mean a debate on the nature of Jesus. The council discussed the heresy which was Jesus humanity vs his divinity.

Post all you want from Yale, it doesn't change the FACT that the Arian heresy is what prompted the CoN to be convened. You seem to have a bug up your ass about that face. You keep harping how his divinity was settled hundreds of years before....nobody argued that it didn't You're trying to be the smartest guy in the room. Stop.



Btw, your assertion that Jesus was divine b/c Jesus said so is comical. Would you allow that sort of statement to hold up in court?

[JoltinJoe]

Btw, your assertion that Jesus was divine b/c Jesus said so is comical. Would you allow that sort of statement to hold up in court?

I was just demonstrating how few assumptions that statement requires. I mean if Chizz wants to throw Occam's Razor out there, there you go. I made one assumption, that being that Jesus spoke the truth.

BTW, you said that the Council of Nicea was called "to discuss his divinity vs his humanity." Occam's Razor. I assumed you meant what you said.

[89Hen]

You're trying to be the smartest guy in the room. Stop.

[Ibanez]

I'll stick with occam's razor
You can keep your desperate overly complex apologetics

Good. Stick with Occam's Razor. Who needs educamation* when you have Occam's Razor?

The great thing about Occam's Razor is that people who invoke it seldom really understand it. Did you know Occam was a Franciscan friar?

(* misspelling intended for humorous effect).

(BTW, perhaps the simplest explanation why billions of people, over the course of 2,000 years, have believed that a being was divine is, because, that being was divine? Look how few assumptions I needed to make there!)

Millions of people believed in Santa...doesn't make him real.

But we're talking about faith. Faith - belief in something without proof.


I'm more of a Christian Deist - which I assume you have a problem with.

[Ibanez]

Btw, your assertion that Jesus was divine b/c Jesus said so is comical. Would you allow that sort of statement to hold up in court?

I was just demonstrating how few assumptions that statement requires. I mean if Chizz wants to throw Occam's Razor out there, there you go. I made one assumption, that being that Jesus spoke the truth.

BTW, you said that the Council of Nicea was called "to discuss his divinity vs his humanity." Occam's Razor. I assumed you meant what you said.

And I should've been more clear. I can accept that.

[Ibanez]

You're trying to be the smartest guy in the room. Stop.

I certainly am not. But I have a good understanding of the ecumenical councils without having to Google.


I also can be unclear so that's my "cross to bear".

[JoltinJoe]

I'm more of a Christian Deist - which I assume you have a problem with.

I don't have a problem with how you choose to describe yourself, but the terms "Christian Deist" is an oxymoron to Christians. Deism is the belief in an impersonal God. Christianity is the belief in a personal God.

I suppose what you are saying is that you accept Christian values, but believe in an impersonal God. From my perspective, if God is impersonal, then there's no point either to believing or not believing in him. By definition, he doesn't care.

[JoltinJoe]

I certainly am not. But I have a good understanding of the ecumenical councils without having to Google.


I also can be unclear so that's my "cross to bear".

Maybe we crossed wires, but Bisonfanatical -- look, a guy who worships bison making fun of us who worship God (I kid, I kid) -- stated that the belief in Christ's divinity was not established until the 4th century. That is completely and demonstrably wrong -- and I thought you were siding with him, so I included your posts in my reply.

As I said, the orthodox acceptance of Christ's divinity was, as to those who attended the Council of Nicea, a fait accompli, and had been since before the turn of the first century. Anyone can say they were wrong in that belief -- but you can't say that belief was not widely accepted until the 4th century.

[Ibanez]

I'm more of a Christian Deist - which I assume you have a problem with.

I don't have a problem with how you choose to describe yourself, but the terms "Christian Deist" is an oxymoron to Christians. Deism is the belief in an impersonal God. Christianity is the belief in a personal God.

I suppose what you are saying is that you accept Christian values, but believe in an impersonal God. From my perspective, if God is impersonal, then there's no point either to believing or not believing in him. By definition, he doesn't care.

No. Christian Deism. I believe in the moral teachings of Jesus Christ. I don't believe in his divinity. That doesn't stand to reason to me. I believe in God...but it's not because a book says he exists. I can see the world, nature, my daughter and get the sense that there's a higher being.

[Ibanez]

I certainly am not. But I have a good understanding of the ecumenical councils without having to Google.


I also can be unclear so that's my "cross to bear".

Maybe we crossed wires, but Bisonfanatical -- look, a guy who worships bison making fun of us who worship God (I kid, I kid) -- stated that the belief in Christ's divinity was not established until the 4th century. That is completely and demonstrably wrong -- and I thought you were siding with him, so I included your posts in my reply.

As I said, the orthodox acceptance of Christ's divinity was, as to those who attended the Council of Nicea, a fait accompli, and had been since before the turn of the first century. Anyone can say they were wrong in that belief -- but you can't say that belief was not widely accepted until the 4th century.

I think we certainly crossed wires with Bison....


See...this is the good thing about this place.

[JoltinJoe]

I don't have a problem with how you choose to describe yourself, but the terms "Christian Deist" is an oxymoron to Christians. Deism is the belief in an impersonal God. Christianity is the belief in a personal God.

I suppose what you are saying is that you accept Christian values, but believe in an impersonal God. From my perspective, if God is impersonal, then there's no point either to believing or not believing in him. By definition, he doesn't care.

No. Christian Deism. I believe in the moral teachings of Jesus Christ. I don't believe in his divinity. That doesn't stand to reason to me. I believe in God...but it's not because a book says he exists. I can see the world, nature, my daughter and get the sense that there's a higher being.

But that's not deism. That's theism. You accept that God has some relationship with his creation, albeit not to the extent of an Incarnation.

[Chizzang]

I'm more of a Christian Deist - which I assume you have a problem with.

I don't have a problem with how you choose to describe yourself, but the terms "Christian Deist" is an oxymoron to Christians. Deism is the belief in an impersonal God. Christianity is the belief in a personal God.

I suppose what you are saying is that you accept Christian values, but believe in an impersonal God. From my perspective, if God is impersonal, then there's no point either to believing or not believing in him. By definition, he doesn't care.

Now this ^ interests me Joe...
Actually its a fascinating phenomenon in Christianity almost exclusively

I know a whole bunch of people who "identify" as Christians
and simultaneously do not believe in the coming rapture
nor do they necessarily believe ANY of the miracles particularly

And Yet,
They absolutely believe in God and they absolutely feel like they are Christians
They consistently respond positively to "being Christian"

It's pretty cool actually

[Ibanez]

No. Christian Deism. I believe in the moral teachings of Jesus Christ. I don't believe in his divinity. That doesn't stand to reason to me. I believe in God...but it's not because a book says he exists. I can see the world, nature, my daughter and get the sense that there's a higher being.

But that's not deism. That's theism.

Joe - of course it's a theism. It's a belief in a deity.

Theism - belief in the existence of a deity. Deism is a form of theism

Deism is the belief in God based on reason and rejecting the supernatural events. I say Christian Deism because of my acceptance of the moral teachings of Jesus - but not his divinity. That doesn't jive with the natural world God has built.

I think a better term might be rational theism. I don't know...that's a bit more philosophical.

[89Hen]

I think a better term might be rational theism. I don't know...that's a bit more philosophical.

And religious folks are irrational (of course some are, some of every group are)?

[Bisonfanatical]

I certainly am not. But I have a good understanding of the ecumenical councils without having to Google.


I also can be unclear so that's my "cross to bear".

Maybe we crossed wires, but Bisonfanatical -- look, a guy who worships bison making fun of us who worship God (I kid, I kid) -- stated that the belief in Christ's divinity was not established until the 4th century. That is completely and demonstrably wrong -- and I thought you were siding with him, so I included your posts in my reply.

As I said, the orthodox acceptance of Christ's divinity was, as to those who attended the Council of Nicea, a fait accompli, and had been since before the turn of the first century. Anyone can say they were wrong in that belief -- but you can't say that belief was not widely accepted until the 4th century.

Just to set the record straight, I don't believe i made any claim about the "divinity" of your Catholic inspired "Christ" being established 400 years ago, it was more about the Title being reinvented by a man-inspired council. below is some samplings of my first posts in this thread;


There was a Messiah who lived and died as recorded 2000 years ago, however, 400 years later his "God" given title was changed to Christ by a paganized Roman Church and the message of the bible was changed from being about Israelites to pagans, and then 1100 years after that his God given name was changed from Yeshua to Jesus (with out the consent of the Creator one might add)


I also stated this;


But all the changes "we" believe in are not from the first books of the first 100 years, but are from "man made" doctrines of the Church of the Roman Empire which twist the message of those books, and this took place much later in history. <br /> My intent was to make the point that both parties attend churches which are solidly based in deception and have no understanding of what "truth" is, yet they want to stand on "truth" to slam each other. <br /><br /> P.S. the small town preacher from the letter above was definately a political hack more than a self proclaimed promoter of some "God’s love".

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk