Correctness and Accuracy; Belief and Fact

born again and again · Sep 18, 2005

To quote ascund:

"How does one become a moderator?"

Well, ascund, you noted "perspicacious."

I doubt that perspicacity is a requirement, unless it is in the context of quoting scriptures.

born again and again · Sep 18, 2005

By DHK:

"Yes. I am saved, born again, adopted into the family of God by His Holy Spirit. God's Spirit bears witness with my spirit that I am a child of God. God speaks to me through His Word; illuminates my mind with His Spirit. Yes, He does speak to me, guides me, directs me, answers prayer, and much much more. I don't have a religion; I have a relationship--a relationship with Jesus Christ my Lord who saved me and delivered me from the penalty of my sin. He has granted me forgiveness of sins--past, present, and future; eternal life.
Yes, I speak to my Lord every day and He speaks to me. Praise the Lord."
DHK

Praise GOD, DHK. Thank you for making my point. Scientific evidence is not a prerequisite for belief to occur. And many Christians refer to their beliefs as being non-religious, merely truths.

born again and again · Sep 18, 2005

Quoting mioque from page 1:

"Some Christians like to pretend that what they do in church is not practicing a religion. What everybody who does things a little (or a lot) different from them is doing religion. Religion is a dirty word."

She makes a lot of sense.

steaver · Sep 18, 2005

No such luck Steaver. I tell you that I am a believer, that it is not necessary for me to know the identity of who wrote the book of John and you respond by referring to me as Pontius Pilot. Well, I guess we've tapped the bottom of the pool of your intellectual capabilities.
Click to expand...

Ah...Pilate returns.

True or false?

Jesus said "ye must be born again".

Jesus said He is the way, the TRUTH, and the life and no man cometh to the Father but by Him.

Also, do you know where the Word of God is that one must read or hear that they might have faith?

Yes, we know what you said, that you are a "believer". We just don't know what you are a believer in! Maybe you could take a couple of minutes to clear that up for us.

God Bless!

born again and again · Sep 19, 2005

And maybe you could stick to the topic of the debate; cause I am not going to debate my religious beliefs with you; just the facts relative to the topic.

born again and again · Sep 19, 2005

Oh, by the way, who is the "We?" Is there more than one steaver?

steaver · Sep 19, 2005

Well, this is off the topic mind you , but since you asked I have no problemm talking about it . The "we" would be everybody watching your comments on this thread, except for any you might have privately answered, that I don't know.

God Bless!

DHK · Sep 20, 2005

Originally posted by born again and again:

To DHK: Tell me you are not really trying to argue that, because the author was familiar with the geography of the area that it had to be John. Here's an interesting thought. Some other people who lived during the same time period and several decades later also were familiar with the geography.
Click to expand...

But none so familiar as John, and with the other events of Christ's life. I will post more in a minute.

Listen, it is understandable that you do not acknowledge that you can offer no scientific proof as to the identity of the author, because that would be admitting fault or mistake or the state of being incorrect in your debate tactics. However, it is abundantly clear to anyone who reads these postings that you have given up on the actual debate and resorted to citing biblical opinions.
Click to expand...

It is not abundantly clear as you will see in a minute. The question is: Will you accept the abundace of evidence that I will present to? If you do not, you are no better than an atheist, who no matter what the evidence given to him, refuses it:

The earliest evidence for John being the author of the Gospel of John is to be found in Papias, as quoted by Eusebius. In this passage he alluded to John, who was one the disciples of the Lord, and also to an elder John, a disciple of the Lord, who was his contemporary. Eusebius deduced that the two persons were different individuals, and cited the existence of two tombs in Ephesus, both of which were called John’s in his day. Since Papias’ works are not now extant, no independent judgment can be formed on the meaning of the statement. Possibly Eusebius misunderstood him. There is no reason why an apostle could not have also been an elder, and Papias may have been saying, that whereas the majority of the apostles did not survive their oral testimony, one or two of them remained until his day as the last witnesses in the flesh of what Jesus had said and done.
The theory that the fourth Gospel was the product of some unknown presbyter by the name of John and not of John the apostle cannot be regarded as established. All the testimony of the fathers from the time of Irenaeus is overwhelming in favour of the Johannine authorship. Clenent of Alexandria (A.D. 190), Origen (ca., A.D. 220), Tertullian (ca., A.D. 200). and the Muratorian Fragment (ca. A.D. 170), agree in attributing the Fourth Gospel to John the son of Zebedee.

The Author
From the Gospel itself certain facts about its author may be educed. First, he was a Jew, who was accustomed to thinking in Aramaic, although the Gospel was written in Greek. Very few subordinate clauses appear in its text, and not infrequently Hebrew or Aramaic words are inserted and then explained. The author was familiar with Jewish tradition. In 1:19-28 he referred to the Jewish expectation of a coming Messiah. He knew the Jewish feeling toward the Samaritans (4:9) and their exclusive attitude in worship (4:20). He was acquainted with the Jewish feasts, which he explained carefully for the readers.

Second, he was a Palestinian Jew, who has personal acquaintance with the land and especially with Jerusalem and its environs (9:7; 11L18; 18:1). He was familiar with the cities of Galilee (1:44; 2:1) and with the territory of Samaria (4:5, 6, 21). He seems to have been quite at home in the country which he described.
Again, he was an eyewitness of the events which he recorded. Both in 1:14, “we beheld his glory…,” and in 19:15, where he spoke in the third person, “he that hath seen hath borne witness,” he claims to be stating what had been part of his personal experience. Small touches scattered through the Gospel confirm this impression. The hour at which Jesus sat at the well curb (4:6), the number and size of the pan at the wedding of Cana (2:6), the weight and value of the ointment that Mary used on Jesus (12:3,5), the details of Jesus’ trial (chaps. 18,19) are points which have little to do with the main narrative, but which indicate the observer’s eye.
Who was the author? Evidently he was with Jesus from the very first of His career, for he mentions episodes that antedate the opening of the account of Jesus’ ministry in the Synoptics. He must have belonged to the group of disciples mentioned in the narrative. According to the final chapter, he is identified with the “beloved disciple.” who was a close associate of Peter, and who had been very near to Jesus at the Last Supper (13:23), at the trial (18:15,16), and at the cross (19:26,27). Only one of Jesus’ most intimate associates would fit these circumstances. James was killed early in the history of the church (Acts 12:2). Peter, Thomas, and Philip are mentioned so frequently in the third person that no one of them could have been the author. Although the author did not name himself, he took for granted that his readers knew who he was and that they would accept his authority in the matters of which he wrote. John the son of Zebedee is the best remaining possibility, and on the assumption of his authorship of the Gospel the following conclusions are founded.

The biography of John is fragmentary like all other Biblical biographies. He was one of the sons of Zebedee (Mark 1:19,20), a fisherman of Galilee, and of Salome, who was probably the sister of Mary, Jesus’ mother (cf. Mat.27:56; Mark 15:40; John 19:25). He grew to manhood in Galilee and was a partner with his brother and with Andrew and Peter in the fishing business. He may have belonged first to the disciples of John the Baptist, and possibly was the companion of Andrew mentioned in John 1:40. If so, he accompanied Jesus on His first tour in Galilee (John 2:2), and later with his partners quit the fishing trade to follow Him (Mat.4:21,22).
The episodes of Jesus’ life in which John shared are too numerous to list and treat separately. He was with Jesus in Jerusalem during the early Judean ministry. Perhaps the interview with Nicodemus was held at his home. He was a participant later in the mission of the Twelve, as described by Matthew (10:1,2). He needed Jesus’ counsel as much as any other of the Twelve, for he and James sseem to have possessed unusually ardent temperaments. Jesus called them “sons of thunder,” or, by a more literal rendering, “sons of tumult” (Mark 3:17). Mark does not assign any reason for the giving of this name to thjem, but the usage of the Hebrew phrase “son of …” usually means that the term which completes it qualifies the man, a “sons of Belial” means “worthless fellows.” Their bigotry and truculence were revealed in their readiness to rebuke the man casting out demons because he did not follow with them (Lue 9:49), and in their de4sire to call down fire from heaven upon the Samaritan villages that would not receive Jesus (9:52-54). Both rashly asked their mother to petition Jesus that He would grant them the seats of primacy in His kingdom (Mat.20:20-28). These crudities of spirit, even though a motive of loyalty to Him and to His work may have activated them, were sharply rebuked by Jesus.

At the Last Supper John occupied a place of privilege and of intimacy next to Jesus (John 13:23). At the trial he obtained access to the court of the high priest because he was known to the family (18:15,16). Perhaps he had been the representative at Jerusalem of his father’s fishing company, and so had become acquainted with all of the prominent households of the city. Apparently he witnessed the trial and death of Jesus and assumed the responsibility for Jesus’ mother, when Jesus committed her to his care (19:26,27). He stayed with Peter during the dark days of the interment, and with him was one of the first visitors at the empty tomb. There, as he looked at the empty grave clothes, he “saw and believed” (20:8).
The epilogue of this Gospel hints that he lived for a long time after the beginning of the Christian era, for an explanation of his long life would scarcely have been necessary otherwise. The epistles show that he rose to a position of influence in the church and that he became a powerful expositor of the love of God as revealed in Christ. His death probably took place at the close of the first century.

From these scattered items of John’s biography, woven into the general narrative of the life of Christ, on can see something of his personal spiritual experiences. Intense in nature, he gave to Christ an undivided loyalty which at times expressed itself crudely and rashly. As Christ tamed his ardour and purified it of unrestrained violence, John became the apostle of love whose devotion was not excelled by that of any other writer of the New Testament. The fire of his nature appears in the vigor of his language. John echoes the strictures of Jesus against unbelievers (8:44) when he calls them “children of the devil” (1John 3:10). The same man, however, said: “Beloved let us love one another; for love is of God; and every one that loveth is begotten of God, and knoweth God.” (4:7). The two are not inconsistent to an intense nature. John is the example of a man who could have been a great sinner, out of whom Christ made a great witness. (pp. 186-189, New Testament Survey, Merrill C. Tenney, Eerdman’s Publ., 1974)
Click to expand...

NOTE: External evidence (scientific)
All the testimony of the fathers from the time of Irenaeus is overwhelming in favour of the Johannine authorship. Clenent of Alexandria (A.D. 190), Origen (ca., A.D. 220), Tertullian (ca., A.D. 200). and the Muratorian Fragment (ca. A.D. 170), agree in attributing the Fourth Gospel to John the son of Zebedee.

NOTE: The rest of the above quote deals directly with internal evidence of textual criticism--a science. This is science, and it is evidence. It is up to you to choose to accept it or reject it. Agnostics and atheists reject it. What postition do you take?
DHK

timothy27 · Sep 20, 2005

BA&A, you said I did not use science yet I would sy I did, what does science use? It uses logic and reason based on facts to come to a conclusion based on those facts. This is what I have done with my post, I used science and if you disagree then you need to freshen up on your definitions. For there is no proof in science. I suppose you believe in evolution even though there is no actual proof that this is how we cam in to existence. Only educated guesses based on the evidence presented before them, using logic and reasoning. I have done the same, therefore I have scientifically proven the author of John. Go back and re-read the post.

steaver · Sep 20, 2005

Ba&a said:

And maybe you could stick to the topic of the debate; cause I am not going to debate my religious beliefs with you; just the facts relative to the topic.
Click to expand...

Fine, here are some of your opening statements...

This is all religion. And it is all based on belief. Either you believe or you do not believe. It has nothing to do with objective fact, only subjective fact.
Click to expand...

You made a declaration, can you prove this in some way or is it to just a personal belief?

Thus, when a believer calls something "fact", it really means that that person believes it. The so called "fact" is the "fact" of that person's belief. Religion is personal to the individual and his/her relationship with God has nothing to do with chruch doctrine or dogma, only his/her personal beliefs.
Click to expand...

Again, you make a declaration, can you prove this in some way?

Using the term "Scripture" to dscribe such texts does not add or detract from their intrinsic value or credibility, however some individuals may tend to revere texts if they are identified as "Scriptures."
Such "Scriptures", although questionable as to their accuracy of portrayal of historical events, are generally given the most weight by individuals who believe them to be true. However it is those same individuals who are usually reluctant to apply objective tests of reliability to anything remotely related to their religious beliefs.
Click to expand...

I'm not reluctant! In fact I invited it on page one but you declined to participate. Here is what I said....

"Let's examine a part of the four gospels. These are testimonies written down about a man who declared he was from God, in fact the very Son of God, and the things he spoke. At the center of it all he declares that he will be crucified, buried and then be raised to life again the third day. The testimonies written declare that all he said had come to pass.

Can you tell me if it is true and why you believe this information is reliable?"

Always question the source of the information as well as the knowledge and motivation of the individual who tells you what is written authority and what is not written authority.
Click to expand...

Sounds good to me. Should we begin or don't you really have any point to your opening statement?

You posted some "information" as facts. I did as you said and questioned the source (in this case your own words) and have questioned as well your motivation since you did the declaring.

Let's see if you will debate your own topic. I did not ask you about your religious beliefs in this post (unless of course what you posted is your religious belief, then I guess according to you it would only true for you). My questions are pointed directly at your declarations. Please demonstrate how your declarations are scientific facts.

God Bless!

Gerhard Ebersoehn · Sep 24, 2005

Quoting BA&A Sept 18, "To Gerhard: May I quote you on that? ". . .tears of co-passion." That statement is probably representative of the sentiment of most of the above responses to the question of scientific evidence as to the identity of who wrote the book of John."

No, BA&A, I reacted on DHK's remarks on salvation!

born again and again · Sep 25, 2005

In prior postings on this topic, steaver repeatedly refers to himself as "We."

So, I finally asked him above,
"Oh, by the way, who is the "We?" Is there more than one steaver?"

And steaver answered,
"The "we" would be everybody watching your comments on this thread, except for any you might have privately answered, that I don't know."

So now that particular question is answered. steaver is self proclaimed as having spoken for everyone who has read this thread. Bravo, steaver. steaver, you never cease to amaze.

born again and again · Sep 25, 2005

On the topic of this thread, that is, the meaning of the word "faith" and the identity of the author of the Gospel of John, after having had at least two months to do so, DHK has "given up" on producing any single scientific fact which tends to prove the identity of who wrote the Book of John. He is now reduced to citing scriptures and making a single oblique reference to Clenent of Alexandria, Origen, Turtullien and the Muratonian fragment. He does not even cite any specific authority or quote from these referenced individuals; instead merely notes that from 170 A.D. to 220 A.D. they indicate that the gospel is "attributed" to John.

Does he also believe that Matthew and Luke did not "borrow" from Mark? Does he feel that the Gospel of Thomas does not contain actual sayings of Jesus or that it just "doesn't fit" into the new Testament by virtue of the fact that it contains no recitation of the crucifixion of Jesus? Questions of interest, for sure, but once you "give up" on science, you are free to engage in more speculation.

born again and again · Sep 25, 2005

Gerhard Ebersoehn's major contribution to the thread is stating that he cried when he bacame aware of DHK's salvation. Sooooo, no argument there and certainly no debate of the topic, either.

born again and again · Sep 25, 2005

"Faith" is the sole basis for anyone concluding that the John who walked with Jesus is the person who actually wrote the Book of John.

And Faith is good. It is not science and it does not need to be science because, after all, we are dealing with our religion here.

steaver · Sep 25, 2005

Pilate said...

So now that particular question is answered. steaver is self proclaimed as having spoken for everyone who has read this thread. Bravo, steaver. steaver, you never cease to amaze.
Click to expand...

It really isn't that amazing. It is science! Go through all of your post in this thread and see if you told anyone what you believe IN. When you see that you didn't, then it is a proven fact that nobody who has read this thread would know what you believe. Therefore my answer is not amazing at all. It is a spoken fact. Tell you what though, I could be wrong. So point out the post were you stated what it is you believe in.

Don't bother, I know you won't because this isn't about you or me. That has been your only answer. So I guess my answer was accurate and correct afterall. Wow! Amazing!

God Bless!

steaver · Sep 25, 2005

And Faith is good. It is not science and it does not need to be science because, after all, we are dealing with our religion here.
Click to expand...

Actually for a Christian faith is based on objective facts. One who has never been born again would not be able to understand these facts. So from a nonbeliever's perspective, faith is just pie in the sky wishful thinking. It is subjective. It is just something man needs to help him along in the unknown. But for the "believer" IN JESUS CHRIST, he or she "knows" the Truth and has been taught by God the objective facts! Thus faith delivers knowledge to the born again and this faith rest in objective facts. For the Christian, faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God. Christian faith has no equal to any other "faith". For it is based on knowledge given by God Himself. Only a Christian could understand this though. God gives the lost enough conviction of the truth to allow them to call to Jesus if they want. After that, if one has made the call by that tiny slice of faith God has given them, God will then enter into this person and seal that faith and begin to teach this new convert all of the objective facts about their new found faith.

God Bless!

born again and again · Sep 25, 2005

See the 5th post above (5 above this one):

"steaver is self proclaimed as having spoken for everyone who has read this thread. Bravo, steaver. steaver, you never cease to amaze."

In response to this, steaver wrote,
"It really isn't that amazing. It is science!"

So I guess the fact that steaver proclaims himself to speak for everone else is science. Keep up the good work, steaver. steaver is truly a master debater,as evidenced by his own words.

born again and again · Sep 25, 2005

By the way, steaver; refering to me as "pilate", sounds a little like name calling or trolling.

born again and again · Sep 25, 2005

steaver writes,

". . .for a Christian faith is based on objective facts."

I beg to differ with steaver. First, I do not believe that he speaks for Christians or Christianity in general. Second, some Christians believe that faith comes through the holy spirit.

Most importantly, none of this relates to the topic of the meaning of the word, "Faith" or the actual identity of who wrote the Book of John.

Correctness and Accuracy; Belief and Fact

born again and again New Member

born again and again New Member

born again and again New Member

steaver Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

born again and again New Member

born again and again New Member

steaver Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

DHK <b>Moderator</b>

timothy27 New Member

steaver Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Gerhard Ebersoehn Active Member
Site Supporter

born again and again New Member

born again and again New Member

born again and again New Member

born again and again New Member

steaver Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

steaver Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

born again and again New Member

born again and again New Member

born again and again New Member

Useful Searches

Correctness and Accuracy; Belief and Fact

born again and again New Member

born again and again New Member

born again and again New Member

steaver Well-Known Member Site Supporter

born again and again New Member

born again and again New Member

steaver Well-Known Member Site Supporter

DHK <b>Moderator</b>

timothy27 New Member

steaver Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Gerhard Ebersoehn Active Member Site Supporter

born again and again New Member

born again and again New Member

born again and again New Member

born again and again New Member

steaver Well-Known Member Site Supporter

steaver Well-Known Member Site Supporter

born again and again New Member

born again and again New Member

born again and again New Member

steaver Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

steaver Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

steaver Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Gerhard Ebersoehn Active Member
Site Supporter

steaver Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

steaver Well-Known Member
Site Supporter