tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31655026.post9211618480440983478..comments2024-03-28T14:42:58.668+00:00Comments on nourishing obscurity: [christianity] is fair discussion possible [2]James Highamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14525082702330365464noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31655026.post-20972169648294569922009-05-07T00:08:00.000+01:002009-05-07T00:08:00.000+01:00I see where you've said "what I'm looking for in a...I see where you've said "what I'm looking for in a guest post is a fresh perspective or some new angle" and given what you wrote in your comments the following Bible challenge will certainly qualify as that.<br /><br />Those who recognize the Bible as the word of God would do well to keep in mind two simple words that can help to immediately reveal the unbiblical foundations of so many ideas that are presented AS IF they are Biblical, and those two words are, "Show me" -- i.e., ask those who promote a given idea to quote at least one Bible passage that would justify teaching that idea. <br /><br />For if one cannot cite even a single verse of scripture that would justify teaching an idea, then obviously they should not be presenting that idea AS IF IT WAS BIBLICAL. Yet, sadly, too many of those who claim to respect the word of God will readily turn a blind eye to the plain text of scripture and substitute the authority of man when they want promote some unbiblical tradition that they want to believe is true.<br /><br />The Bible urges us to "prove ALL things" (emphasis added) and yet you clearly have not done so in the case of the unbiblical, man-made tradition that you promote with this statement: "John, the Beloved Disciple, published his Gospel...", for not only is there not a single verse that would justify teaching this idea (don't change the subject, please, if this charge is false then just cite one verse and prove it so), but the facts stated in scripture prove that WHOEVER the beloved disciple was he certainly was not John. <br /><br />On this question one can choose to ignore the offer of Biblical correction and go on pretending that the Bible says something that it does not say (i.e. that the unnamed "other disciple, whom Jesus loved" who wrote the fourth gospel was John) or they can receive the reproof that the word of God presents and let this erroneous tradition of men fall by the way side. But those who have read this can no longer plead ignorance when they present the John idea AS IF IT WERE BIBLICAL, since they will now know that they are not be able to cite a single verse that would justify teaching this idea -- no one ever has, not those who originated this error and not those who continue to promote the John idea as if it were true.Jimhttp://thegospelofjohn.com/who_wrote_the_Gospel_of_John/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31655026.post-91247669974397751692009-05-04T13:25:00.000+01:002009-05-04T13:25:00.000+01:00Ah yes but you, an academic, know full well that t...Ah yes but you, an academic, know full well that the indication of the many texts, taken as a whole and the usage made of that also plays a role.<br /><br />Also, why were such vast numbers willing to embellish? could it have been that they'd suffered suppression for so long that they had to get the word out one way or the other?<br /><br />I don't agree with what they did at all but it too is an inidcator in itself. One has to take into account all factors in scholarship.James Highamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14525082702330365464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31655026.post-86543535353945021172009-05-04T01:32:00.000+01:002009-05-04T01:32:00.000+01:00I have no trouble in believing that Jesus existed....I have no trouble in believing that Jesus existed. I'm perfectly happy to be persuaded by scholars that the Gospels were written within a generation of his death. But I'm dismayed if anyone uncritically trots out evidence of letters by Snooks to Bloggs in the first or second century AD. Almost everything alleged to be from that time will be a copy of a copy of a copy. The copying will usually have been done by monks, a crew notoriously given to forgery to advance the cause of their Vicious Gang/Holy Mother Church.deariemenoreply@blogger.com