Why do you believe the Gospel of John, verbatim?

[Elijah John]

Does the Gospel of John present Jesus words and teachings verbatim? If so, why do you believe this? Why are you so sure that the Evangelist "John" did not put any words on Jesus lips?

How certain are you that the real, historical Jesus said the words of John 14.6 or John 3.16, for example? And why this certainty?

[Elijah John]

Remarkably well put - thanks.

We either forgo the faith or we walk by faith.

Those who divide the Word or doubt or reject parts of it are taking a path that does not lead to life.

Instead, they create their own version of the Bible, one that reflects the false god they have made in their own image and likeness.

Grace and peace to you.

This is nonsense.

First of all, how do you know what exactly constitutes the Word of God? As I said earlier, the Jews had a certain canon, the Catholics had far more books in theirs. And the Protestants picked and chose, reducing theirs to 66 books. How do you know who is right?? Let me guess, you accept only the 66 books of the Protestant canon, right? No more, no less. Why is that? I really want an answer.

I find God in the revelation of His name, in the Ten Commandments, in Creation, in the Lord's Prayer, in Jesus preaching of the Golden Rule, and in his Parables, etc etc. I did not make up ANY of those things, therefore I am not following "a God of my own invention".

It's a facile argument to accuse those of us who read the Bible thoughtfully and critically, who employ discernment and our God given Reason of "inventing a god in our own image". Nonsense. I could just as easily accuse "Bible b'leevin'' Christians" and Fundamentalists of lazy thinking, and making an idol out of a book. Bibliolatry. And out of a man, a good man, but a man nonetheless. "Instead of God, a man is preached" by Paul and his modern day disciples.

Sure, the Bible contains true revelation and the Word of God. But "the Good Book" did not drop in-tact from Heaven, did it. (I also would be very interested in your reply to this point). It was compiled by men sometimes by committee, over the centuries. And at times, and in places it also contains the bias and prejudice of primitive people. On the whole, the Bible sometimes does God justice but it also slanders Him, by (in the words of Thomas Paine) "attributing to the orders of the Almighty the savagery of men". Or word to that effect. Paine also goes on to say that the Bible has "succeeded only in producing atheists and fanatics". Both groups have at various times, accused those of us who are neither atheist nor fanatic of "inventing a god in our own image". I think Paine overstates it a bit, but there is a lot of truth in what he is saying, despite the hyperbole.

Also, when the Bible contradicts itself, aren't we all compelled to pick and choose, whether or not we admit it? If you say "there are no contradictions in the Bible", then I don't think you have been paying attention to our exchanges on these boards. Many posters have posted many contradictions contained in the Bible, here on this site, over the years.

[brianbbs67]

Is the instruction, not, to pray to rightly divide the word we are given?

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/le ... ongs=g3718

[Checkpoint]

Is the instruction, not, to pray to rightly divide the word we are given?

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/le ... ongs=g3718

Yes.

2 Timothy 2:15

Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

[Divine Insight]

Is building a new form of Christianity based on a more original Jesus going to succeed? God only knows. But at the very least, that "new" form of Christianity may well represent an old form of Christianity which was squelched by John, Paul, and emperor Constantine.

This suggestion appears to me to be nothing more than a theological disaster.

In order for this kind of apology to work the creator God would need to be unbelievably inept. Basically the worse communicator ever. He would also be a God who has absolutely no control over anything at all. He would be a God who could not control his own priests, temples, or anything. He couldn't even prevent Jesus from being crucified, unless you believe that Jesus' crucifixion was some sort of plan God had. But why should that be? Especially since the whole plan has become a theological disaster.

Why do you think God allowed Jesus to be brutally crucified?

What's your reasoning why God would have permitted this?

Do you believe that this was part of God's plan? And if so, then what was the reason for it? And if not, then what exactly does this God have control over?

I don't see where your attempts to renounce Orthodox Christianity does anything toward contributing to a meaningful theology. All you end up with is a God who can't do anything effectively anyway.

Why would a personal God who cares about humans sit back for thousands of years watching humans become totally confused over what he expects from them and do absolutely nothing whatsoever to correct the situation?

In short, I just don't see where your views on this religion would do anything to help the religion in any way.

Yes, I agree that Orthodox Christianity is utterly absurd. But then I also feel the same way about the original Hebrew religion described in the Old Testament. Those fables aren't any better.

Apparently you seem to be approaching your views of Jesus like as if the original religion already has a clean bill of health. I see no reason to believe in the original religion, much less the addition of Jesus, even as a supposed "prophet".

So apparently we are on extremely different pages. The problem with these ancient religions doesn't start with Jesus. These ancient religions were already riddled with extreme self-contradictions long before the days of Jesus.

But you seem to be arguing against the divinity of Jesus.

Do you reject the virgin-birth tales?

Do you reject the idea that Jesus rose from the dead?

Are you trying to argue that Jesus was just a mere mortal man who actually died when he was crucified?

This is a problem Elijah John. If you want to argue against an orthodox religion you need to first have a new version of it to offer up.

Then perhaps we can debate your proposed theology.

In the meantime all we have are your complaints about Orthodox Christianity but no solutions offered up for any new religion to replace it.

You need to explain to us precisely what you believe God's Plan was with Jesus.

According to your own claims all this episode with Jesus did was confuse the greatest number of people on earth (i.e. the Orthodox Christians). So how do you explain why God wanted to confuse so many people through the use of Jesus?

How do you make any sense of that?

Doesn't it make far more sense to simply recognize that there is no God associated with Jesus at all?

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 11 by Elijah John]

This is nonsense

We either walk by faith or we walk by the ways and thoughts of this world.

Nonsense is detected by the eye of the holder to one way or the other.

Jesus had something to say about that.

Grace and peace to you.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 15 by Checkpoint]

Are the Ten Commandments the "Thoughts of this world"? Are the Beattitudes the "Thoughts of this world"?

Faith and Reason are not mutually exclusive, though at times Paul and his disciples seem to think so.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

The Apostle John wrote in proper Greek, and when the rules for translating Greek are honored, what John wrote harmonizes completely. He showed that Jesus is NOT God, and it is only because, later on down the corridors of time, men saw fit to CHANGE what John wrote, that we have a muddled mess of translations. There have been many clerics and scribes and copyists who saw the opportunity to add or change around words and even whole verses, to support their own biases.

[William]

@

Elijah John: Is building a new form of Christianity based on a more original Jesus going to succeed? God only knows. But at the very least, that "new" form of Christianity may well represent an old form of Christianity which was squelched by John, Paul, and emperor Constantine.

Divine Insight:This suggestion appears to me to be nothing more than a theological disaster.

William:This should be interesting...

Divine Insight:In order for this kind of apology to work the creator God would need to be unbelievably inept. Basically the worse communicator ever. He would also be a God who has absolutely no control over anything at all. He would be a God who could not control his own priests, temples, or anything. He couldn't even prevent Jesus from being crucified, unless you believe that Jesus' crucifixion was some sort of plan God had. But why should that be? Especially since the whole plan has become a theological disaster.

William: To say that the GOD is 'inept' does not speak to me as coming from any place of Divine Insight.

From what the overall story provides in way of evidence pertaining to this GOD, I have no choice but to disagree.
In relation to the individual and this GOD, the individual is permitted to put upon this GOD any particular costume they will, and that the individual will deal with that costumed GOD.

The GOD allows the individual to believe whatever they will and also promises that the individual will have to deal with that in the next level.
To call that inept appears to me to be rather a premature assessment to be making.

The GOD has made it this way - that someone can regard him as "worse communicator ever" - hasn't taken into account that the GOD has communicated to us, through a variety of means - of his choice, to allow the individual their right to figure it out for themselves.

The GOD under examination has communicated why he does not insist his control over any humans...he wants them to chose as freely as they possibly can - based on the available data - how the individual chooses to 'see' him.

We are told that he could have easily prevented Jesus' crucifixion, and chose not to. We are informed that this is because he wanted individuals to choose Jesus as a means of helping us to work out exactly the type of GOD he is.

He also informs us that 'Theological disasters' ordinarily result from individuals together getting it wrong about him.

Divine Insight:Why do you think God allowed Jesus to be brutally crucified?

William:So that I would have some kind of bearing as to how to understand my life and why I am here, and 'what GOD is'.

Divine Insight:What's your reasoning why God would have permitted this?

William:To assist me in my journey into self discovery. To teach me The Secrets of The Kingdom of Heaven (afterlife).

Divine Insight:Do you believe that this was part of God's plan?

William:I try to avoid belief. I do understand GOD's plans - for me as an individual - have more to do with the next phase (afterlife/Metaphysical Universe)) than this phase here in this Kingdom of Earth. (the Physical Universe

Divine Insight:And if so, then what was the reason for it?

William:There are - as I understand it - a myriad of reasonable reasons for it which work in congruity. GODs mind is largely unknown, but a plan of sorts can be reasonably assumed.
I think that in purely naturalistic terms, GOD is interested in building machines which can harvest the stuff of this universe into some useful machine.
To do this, he first created biological instruments...

Divine Insight:what exactly does this God have control over

William:Everything. Some things he controls directly, and many things he controls indirectly.

Divine Insight:I don't see where your attempts to renounce Orthodox Christianity does anything toward contributing to a meaningful theology. All you end up with is a God who can't do anything effectively anyway.

William:GOD wants us to see how everything is in the eye of the beholder.
It appears that for some, he intends to give them a mansion (one of the many in his house) in order for them to be able to practice being competent GODs over their own creations.
There is also a type of mansion handy for the use of testing out ideas of GOD which the individual has imagined, to see what might happen when the individual creates a universe base on that individuals beliefs/ideas about GOD.

Divine Insight:Why would a personal God who cares about humans sit back for thousands of years watching humans become totally confused over what he expects from them and do absolutely nothing whatsoever to correct the situation?

William:Why do you imagine that GOD would be unable to multitask? It appears now and again the GOD under question injects himself into the drama of human beings, but how should we think it is not simply a wee side dish he occasionally notices when his ripples cause some major effect?
Hardly 'absolutely nothing'.


Divine Insight:In short, I just don't see where your views on this religion would do anything to help the religion in any way.

William:The religion itself is wrought with dress-ups of human judgments as to 'what GOD is' - and suffers because of this.
In that, the religion may not be projecting the correct image of the GOD under question.
This is allowed by the GOD to happen, and those who don't understand that are more likely to end up critical of the straw-man image of GOD religon created, than the true image.
Primarily it is not religions fault if the individual believes in the image of GOD which religion creates.
If GOD gave the individual enough intelligence to figure it out, it is not an inept GOD who has caused the individual to not use the intelligence given him for that task.

Divine Insight:Yes, I agree that Orthodox Christianity is utterly absurd. But then I also feel the same way about the original Hebrew religion described in the Old Testament. Those fables aren't any better.

William: I used to think that myself until more recently...the Old Testament GOD is just another religious projection and should not be taken too seriously as any actual indication of what GOD is...use of intelligence is important to the process of working things out in relation to questions of GOD. III

[Avoice]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

How do we know that the quotes attributed to john are the words if jesus?

More importantly- who wrote the book of John? Not John. Noooo.

The gosoels were all written anonymously. They were titled by the church in the 2nd century. Later the church added 'Saint" before their names. The church admits this though they don't speak of this at Sunday school or the church services.

The very first words in the Christian Testament are a lie
"The gospel according to Saint Mathew"

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

How do we know that the quotes attributed to john are the words if jesus?

More importantly- who wrote the book of John? Not John. Noooo.

The gosoels were all written anonymously. They were titled by the church in the 2nd century. Later the church added 'Saint" before their names. The church admits this though they don't speak of this at Sunday school or the church services.

The very first words in the Christian Testament are a lie
"The gospel according to Saint Mathew"

Avoice, do you really know for sure that those words are a lie? If you don't know for an absolute certainty, it would be wise not to be so negative about the Word of God.

And isn't it more important to focus on what it was that the author of John's Gospel was trying to say?