The strangest thing of all

Blocked

Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 04 2012,05:33)

Quote (Stu @ Sep. 04 2012,23:06)

And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Uzzah, and he struck him down because he put out his hand to the ark, and he died there before God.

stu

how many times did your father told you not to play with fire ,and like me you did not listen and got burned,

Good one, Pierre.

September 4, 2012 at 11:05 pm#311714

Blocked

Quote (Stu @ Sep. 04 2012,01:28)

The writer is saying that what he is writing has been passed on to him by people he considers to have been eyewitnesses.

And do you have any logical reason to doubt Luke's word that he gathered his research from actual eyewitnesses? Do you have any non-personal reason to suspect that those who told Luke they had seen these things with their own eyes were lying to him?

Quote (Stu @ Sep. 04 2012,01:28)

So Luke – Acts is not the account of an eyewitness.

Why would you include Acts in with Luke's Gospel? In Acts, Luke recorded the things he personally witnessed, such as Peter's speech that I posted yesterday. This is attested by the many times the writer says “WE did this” and “this happened to US”, etc.

Quote (Stu @ Sep. 04 2012,01:28)

This is historical fiction………..

Says who, Stu? YOU? I disagree with you.

And, even though I said I was done, I'll point out one more thing:

John 19
26 When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to her, “Woman, here is your son,” 27 and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.

If you'll remember, I showed you that only the 12 Apostles were with Jesus as the last supper, and “the disciple whom he loved” was reclining up against Jesus in that upstairs room. So we know that WHOEVER wrote the Gospel of John was one of the 12 Apostles. And from the above scripture, we know that this writer was an EYEWITNESS to the crucifixion of Jesus. And from chapters 20 and 21, we know that this same writer also witnessed Thomas sticking his hands into the side of Jesus, and the other things Jesus did after he was raised from the dead.

So now we have an EYEWITNESS account, from one of the 12 Apostles, of the ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

At the very least, we can lay to rest the claim that Mary Magdalene was “the disciple whom Jesus loved”, right?

Quote (Stu @ Sep. 04 2012,01:28)

Do you ever read anything I write?

Not too often. I mostly stay in the believers section of this site.

September 5, 2012 at 7:07 am#311750

Participant

Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 04 2012,22:23)

Quote (Stu @ Sep. 04 2012,16:06)

Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 04 2012,14:35)

The slaughter was not for the truth of God ,that was violent men who did this,and that is not the killing I was questioning ,it was people that voluntary accepted dead over live for the sake of the truth of God,

So this is “killing for the truth of god”?

1 Chronicles 13:9 And when they came to the threshing floor of Chidon, Uzzah put out his hand to take hold of the ark, for the oxen stumbled. 10 And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Uzzah, and he struck him down because he put out his hand to the ark, and he died there before God.

Of course your claim is about martyrdom, not the wanton killing by the god character. What conclusion do you draw from the fact that people are willing to die for their religious beliefs?

Stuart

Hi Stuart,

You seem more interested in the reaction that you can get from
others than the truth of the matter; Uzzah's death was more
likely an accident from the improper handling of “The Ark”.

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

Isn't discussion about assessing others' reaction?

As for Uzzah, it doesn't look like an accident to me. The god character makes a boastful confession. I suggest you stay in whatever occupation you currently occupy and not apply for detective training.

Stuart

September 5, 2012 at 7:09 am#311751

Participant

Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 04 2012,22:33)

Quote (Stu @ Sep. 04 2012,23:06)

Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 04 2012,14:35)

So this is “killing for the truth of god”?

Of course your claim is about martyrdom, not the wanton killing by the god character. What conclusion do you draw from the fact that people are willing to die for their religious beliefs?

Stuart

stu

how many times did your father told you not to play with fire ,and like me you did not listen and got burned,

what the scriptures do to some people is just a mystery ,some will react some will not and burn the book ,

but I never ear anyone act like this for a scientific book ,right

so their must be something special in their that is not in the other books.

Not sure what is special about a book that tells stories of a god killing people for disobeying. Was that what you had in mind?

Stuart

September 5, 2012 at 7:21 am#311752

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 05 2012,09:43)

Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 04 2012,05:33)

Quote (Stu @ Sep. 04 2012,23:06)

And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Uzzah, and he struck him down because he put out his hand to the ark, and he died there before God.

stu

how many times did your father told you not to play with fire ,and like me you did not listen and got burned,

Good one, Pierre.

And they made you a mod. Good grief.

Firstly, have a guess at how many times I was killed by my father for touching stuff. Yup, to date, zero times.

Secondly, in the case of playing with fire, the advice (if I ever received it) was clearly for my own benefit. On the other hand, the demand that no one touch the ark of the covenant can only have been for the benefit of the god character, for reasons totally incomprehensible to Uzzah. At the very least we are not told god's 'reasons' for demanding it not be touched.

How on earth could it be a moral action for Uzzah to be summarily executed for a 'crime' he didn't understand? After all, people here constantly whine on about how I can be 'saved' no matter what degree of blasphemy and general disrespect I have shown to their god concept. So whence the violence against Uzzah who is not said to have done anything more than try to help?

Of course the other possibility is that the ark of the covenant was a booby trap for the humans who were being sincere and genuine in their attempts to do what they thought was the right thing.

I ask you again, who would worship such an unspeakable monster?

Stuart

September 5, 2012 at 9:12 am#311753

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 05 2012,10:05)

And do you have any logical reason to doubt Luke's word that he gathered his research from actual eyewitnesses?

Why do you call the author of Luke “Luke”? Should we trust the word of someone whose name we don’t know? Would we trust that as a direct connection to an eyewitness source when the scholarly consensus is that the author of Luke-Acts copied the gospel account from Mark and the ‘Q’? What we need is someone who saw Jesus and wrote about it. That was the claim you made earlier, but we don’t seem to have eyewitnesses in the material you have presented.

With ancient Middle Eastern writing being so allegorical even an eyewitness account would need careful scrutiny. Hearsay gained second-hand and embellished in the same way that some early christians were prepared to dishonestly embellish Josephus’s Testimonium Flavianum, for example, gives me a good logical reason to doubt the integrity of the story penned by the writer of Luke.

If we wanted to make a link to the title of the thread, perhaps the ‘strangest thing of all’ is the writing of Paul. The main evangelical go-between bridging the supposed time of Jesus with the writing of the gospels all those years later is Paul, and he doesn’t mention Joseph, Mary, Bethlehem, Jesus’s baptism, Herod, the census, Jesus in Egypt, any supposed miracles, Jesus as a teacher, Jesus’s ministry or Jesus’s disciples. In fact it is difficult to see Jesus as a real human being in the writing of Paul. Now it may be that Paul just chose not to interpret the story from those points of view, but whatever the reason, we have a serious problem that he is the only person writing relevant material in that intervening period.

So how was that account passed on to the author of Mark and the author of ‘Q’, from whom the writer of Luke (and the writer of Matthew) copied? An oral tradition passed on by Peter (which one?) to the author of Mark then the author of Luke? Anyone believing the stories of miracles in that circumstance, with the political context in Roman-occupied Palestine would have to be credulous to say the least. Or would need to pull out the faith card and claim magic.

Quote

Do you have any non-personal reason to suspect that those who told Luke they had seen these things with their own eyes were lying to him?

See above. There is no reason to think any eyewitness of Jesus ever spoke with the author of Luke-Acts. There is plenty of reason to think the writing is at least third-hand to the alleged original events.

Quote

Please post the ‘many’ verses that say “WE did this” and “this happened to US”.

Quote

I disagree with you.

I think it is pretty clear that Jerusalem really exists, and Egypt does, and the Sea of Galilee is there today, and a Jewish preacher called Jesus very probably lived near those locations. However, people don’t walk on water or get born of only one parent or walk again after being executed. The Census of Quirinus didn’t happen at the claimed time of Jesus’s birth, and it would be ridiculous to think the Romans required wide-scale relocation just to take part in a tax census. The slaughter of the innocents appears to have been made up also. Hence it is historical fiction – a made up story set in a real historical context. There are few better examples than the gospel accounts. There was more than enough motive to invent such a mythology.

Quote

And, even though I said I was done, I'll point out one more thing:

John 19
26 When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to her, “Woman, here is your son,” 27 and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.

This is ambiguous, isn’t it. Try reading it this way: When Jesus saw his mother there, and Mary Magdalene, he said to his Mother, I standing here am your son, and to Mary Magdalene, “here is your (metaphorical) mother”. From that time on, Mary Magdalene took Mary into her home.
But what do the other gospels say about this same scene??

Quote

If you'll remember, I showed you that only the 12 Apostles were with Jesus as the last supper, and “the disciple whom he loved” was reclining up against Jesus in that upstairs room.

You didn’t establish that “The Twelve” were the only ones there. It doesn’t actually say ‘only’. I’ve seen the DaVinci Code. I know who was reclining!

Quote

So we know that WHOEVER wrote the Gospel of John was one of the 12 Apostles.

No we don’t. The authorship of the Johannine works is a very great problem in scholarship. Indeed it is an argument that has gone on for 1800 years. The best you could do I think would be to stick to the idea that a community wrote down the stories of the 80 year-old John the apostle, and mixed in all sorts of theological speculation. The mix of Greek and Hebrew attitudes plus the fact that it is a very literate account strongly negate the idea that this is a fisherman writing down what he saw. It is more that the name of John was associated with the writing just to enhance its reputation for evangelical purposes.

Quote

t the very least, we can lay to rest the claim that Mary Magdalene was “the disciple whom Jesus loved”, right?

I don’t think you have done that at all. The gospel of Philip obviously isn’t an eyewitness account but it’s not much less credible than Luke or Matthew or John. Philip is consistent with aspects of the others, for example the verse you quote above. And we know what Philip says about Mary Magdalene. What is your basis for discriminating between these accounts? Why is mention of the “Beloved Disciple” in the canon limited to John? Why do the other gospels not mention that any of “the twelve” witnessed the execution of Jesus?
Stuart

September 5, 2012 at 9:16 am#311754

Participant

Quote (Stu @ Sep. 05 2012,18:07)

Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 04 2012,22:23)

Quote (Stu @ Sep. 04 2012,16:06)

Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 04 2012,14:35)

So this is “killing for the truth of god”?

Of course your claim is about martyrdom, not the wanton killing by the god character. What conclusion do you draw from the fact that people are willing to die for their religious beliefs?

Stuart

Hi Stuart,

You seem more interested in the reaction that you can get from
others than the truth of the matter; Uzzah's death was more
likely an accident from the improper handling of “The Ark”.

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

Isn't discussion about assessing others' reaction?

Stuart

Hi Stuart,

It was my detective prowess that found the proof of God's existence.

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

September 5, 2012 at 11:32 pm#311784

Blocked

Quote (Stu @ Sep. 05 2012,01:21)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 05 2012,09:43)

Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 04 2012,05:33)

Quote (Stu @ Sep. 04 2012,23:06)

And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Uzzah, and he struck him down because he put out his hand to the ark, and he died there before God.

stu

how many times did your father told you not to play with fire ,and like me you did not listen and got burned,

Good one, Pierre.

And they made you a mod. Good grief.

Firstly, have a guess at how many times I was killed by my father for touching stuff. Yup, to date, zero times.

You seem to have missed the point, Stu. If you father wired your house with electricity, and then told you not to stick a fork into the wall outlet or you would die, and then you DID stick a fork in that outlet and you DID die, is your father to blame for wiring your house with electricity? What if it was an accident? What if you were eating breakfast, had a fork in your hand, saw that your little sister was about to eat poison, and so ran to her aid – only to trip and fall with the fork landing square into the outlet? You were trying to do what was right, yet you died. Shall we blame your father?

Listen up, Stu:

Numbers 4:15
After Aaron and his sons have finished covering the holy furnishings and all the holy articles, and when the camp is ready to move, the Kohathites are to come to do the carrying. But they must not touch the holy things or they will die.

That is the rule God set, Stu. If someone who had not been properly consecrated touched the most holy things, they would die. There was no rule about if it was an accident, or if they were only trying to help. If they touched it, they died. Uzzah touched it, and he died. End of story.

You don't have to like it, Stu. And I'm quite sure it doesn't matter to God whether or not you like it. After all, you won't be judging God on the last day, He will be judging you.

Your personal opinion about this incident matters even less to God than it does to me – and that's saying alot.

September 6, 2012 at 12:10 am#311790

Blocked

Quote (Stu @ Sep. 05 2012,03:12)

Why do you call the author of Luke “Luke”? Should we trust the word of someone whose name we don’t know?

What would you like to call him? It doesn't really matter, because we have someone claiming to have heard the things that are written in his book from EYEWITNESSES to the events described in his book. Do you have a NON-PERSONAL reason to disbelieve what this author wrote? Do you have a NON-PERSONAL reason to doubt that he actually did record events as told to him from EYEWITNESSES like he claims?

What gives you the right to call this man you don't know a liar just because you don't like his message?

Quote (Stu @ Sep. 05 2012,03:12)

There is no reason to think any eyewitness of Jesus ever spoke with the author of Luke-Acts. There is plenty of reason to think the writing is at least third-hand to the alleged original events.

Why not? He SAID they did, didn't he? Why would you just assume he was lying? And what “reasons” do you offer that his writing is third hand? Can any of those reasons be confirmed beyond a doubt?

Quote (Stu @ Sep. 05 2012,03:12)

Please post the ‘many’ verses that say “WE did this” and “this happened to US”.

Here are a few:

Acts 16:12
From there we traveled to Philippi, a Roman colony and the leading city of that district of Macedonia. And we stayed there several days.

Acts 20:6
But we sailed from Philippi after the Feast of Unleavened Bread, and five days later joined the others at Troas, where we stayed seven days.

Acts 21:4
Finding the disciples there, we stayed with them seven days. Through the Spirit they urged Paul not to go on to Jerusalem.

Acts 21:7
We continued our voyage from Tyre and landed at Ptolemais, where we greeted the brothers and stayed with them for a day.

Acts 21:8
Leaving the next day, we reached Caesarea and stayed at the house of Philip the evangelist, one of the Seven.

Acts 28:1
Once safely on shore, we found out that the island was called Malta.

Acts 28:12
We put in at Syracuse and stayed there three days.

There are more.

Quote (Stu @ Sep. 05 2012,03:12)

You didn’t establish that “The Twelve” were the only ones there. It doesn’t actually say ‘only’.

And here come more of the ever-shrinking hoops you'd like me to jump through for your entertainment.

Mark 14:20
“It is one of the Twelve,” he replied, “one who dips bread into the bowl with me.

Do you suppose there were others in that upper room, but they weren't allowed to eat?

Quote (Stu @ Sep. 05 2012,03:12)

Why do the other gospels not mention that any of “the twelve” witnessed the execution of Jesus?

I'll take that as your defeat. You said there were no eyewitnesses, and I gave you John, who eye witnessed the ministry, crucifixion, and Jesus after he had been raised from the dead.

You can cry about it all you want, but I don't have any reason whatsoever to disbelieve that all the books in the Bible attributed to the Apostle John were actually hand written by the Apostle John. (I already mentioned before his use of “the Word” to refer to Jesus in at least three of his five books.)

The one who wrote these things said he saw these things. I have no reason to doubt him. And your reasons are severely wanting – reasons such as: Well, I've never PERSONALLY seen anyone walk on water, or walk again after being executed. So what? I've never PERSONALLY seen a lot of the miraculous things that happen around us each and every day. That doesn't mean they don't happen.

Bye Stu.

September 6, 2012 at 11:00 pm#311842

terraricca

Participant

Quote (Stu @ Sep. 06 2012,01:09)

Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 04 2012,22:33)

Quote (Stu @ Sep. 04 2012,23:06)

Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 04 2012,14:35)

So this is “killing for the truth of god”?

Of course your claim is about martyrdom, not the wanton killing by the god character. What conclusion do you draw from the fact that people are willing to die for their religious beliefs?

Stuart

stu

how many times did your father told you not to play with fire ,and like me you did not listen and got burned,

what the scriptures do to some people is just a mystery ,some will react some will not and burn the book ,

but I never ear anyone act like this for a scientific book ,right

so their must be something special in their that is not in the other books.

Not sure what is special about a book that tells stories of a god killing people for disobeying. Was that what you had in mind?

Stuart

STU

god does not kill for the sake of killing ,and he is also the one that can restore a dead person back to live ,

so their is a lesson to learn ,but people do not obey God but it is not for that reason only that people get killed but also for their wickedness ,and the killing of innocent men

September 7, 2012 at 9:43 am#311882

TimothyVI

Participant

^^^ And when God decided to drown everybody it was because they were all wicked, every last man, woman and little baby. After all, they were made in His image.

Tim

September 7, 2012 at 9:50 am#311883

Participant

Quote (TimothyVI @ Sep. 07 2012,20:43)

^^^ And when God decided to drown everybody it was because they were all wicked, every last man, woman and little baby. After all, they were made in His image.

Tim

Hi Tim,

The wickedness was because the DNA of man
had become polluted by Angelic beings. (see Gen.6:1-2)
Gen 6:9 “Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations“

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

September 7, 2012 at 9:52 am#311884

Participant

Hi Tim,

We were created in God's image, not of Angelic beings.

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

September 7, 2012 at 10:20 am#311885

charity

Participant

Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 07 2012,20:50)

Quote (TimothyVI @ Sep. 07 2012,20:43)

^^^ And when God decided to drown everybody it was because they were all wicked, every last man, woman and little baby. After all, they were made in His image.

Tim

Hi Tim,

The wickedness was because the DNA of man
had become polluted by Angelic beings. (see Gen.6:1-2)
Gen 6:9 “Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations“

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

Easter Spectacular. the year after Jesus.

Act 12:2 And he killed James the brother of John with the sword. And because he saw it pleased the Jews,
he proceeded further to take Peter also.

and delivered [him] to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; (A big Deal)
intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

Act 12:6 And when Herod (would have) brought him forth,
the same night Peter was sleeping between two soldiers, bound with two chains:
and the keepers before the door kept the prison.
Act 12:7 And, behold, the angel of the Lord came upon [him],
and a light shined in the prison:
and he smote Peter on the side,
and raised him up

Act 12:11 And when Peter was come to himself

Act 12:15
And they said unto her,
Thou art mad.
But she constantly affirmed that it was even so. Then said they,

It is his angel.

September 7, 2012 at 11:39 am#311889

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 06 2012,10:32)

I have no idea what this has to do with the story of Uzzah. In that rather nasty fable, the anger of the god character is vented by the smiting of a human. In the 2 Samuel version Uzzah is killed “by the ark” and in the Chronicles account killed by god because he touched the ark.

You seem to have missed the point that the god character gets angry and then Uzzah dies. How on earth is this an accident? Did the god character not realise he was putting humans in mortal peril? So much for omniscience or omnipotence, this looks like a clumsy god that has little care for health and safety and less respect for human morals. Uzzah was only trying to help, and god either kills him by accident or on purpose. Is the charge murder or manslaughter?

Quote

Numbers 4:15
After Aaron and his sons have finished covering the holy furnishings and all the holy articles, and when the camp is ready to move, the Kohathites are to come to do the carrying. But they must not touch the holy things or they will die.

Right, and the god that does this is an unspeakable monster unworthy of worship, as I pointed out already.

Quote

You don't have to like it, Stu.

Fortunately it is all fantasy fiction, so I don’t really have to have any opinion about it at all. But it is fun watching you fail to justify the monstrous actions of your Imaginary Friend.

Quote

And I'm quite sure it doesn't matter to God whether or not you like it. After all, you won't be judging God on the last day, He will be judging you.

I have already assessed your god, and if I ever get the chance to catch it I will do what I can to bring it to trial on charges of human rights violations and genocide. You may think that not possible. I agree, it doesn’t really exist. But you seem to be suggesting that the god character would smite me for doing what I think is right. That would be 5 more litres of human blood on the hands of this tyrant god, with no moral justification for the action. It is not immoral to seek a fair trial for an accused being, deity or otherwise. Apparently that is not how this god sees things though.

Stuart

September 7, 2012 at 12:04 pm#311895

Participant

Hi Stuart,

See it was all for the reaction as I have suggested.

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

September 7, 2012 at 12:18 pm#311896

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 06 2012,11:10)

Quote (Stu @ Sep. 05 2012,03:12)

Why do you call the author of Luke “Luke”? Should we trust the word of someone whose name we don’t know?

It matters not. You claimed there were eyewitnesses accounts of Jesus, and you haven’t presented any. Thanks for playing, please come again.

Quote

Why not? He SAID they did, didn't he?

A good point, if the traditional view is right, the one you are adopting but few scholars do, why are there plural eyewitnesses claimed right at the start of Luke? Who are the “we”? Are they the person who talked to Mark, and perhaps the author of “Q”? Are they a generalized group of christians who were passing on hearsay, claiming to be eyewitnesses?

Quote

Why would you just assume he was lying? And what “reasons” do you offer that his writing is third hand? Can any of those reasons be confirmed beyond a doubt?

The existence of Jesus can’t be confirmed “beyond a doubt”. The reasons for believing Luke to be a third-hand account are textural. You might have to take that up with the scholars who know what they are talking about. Luke and Matthew copy Mark and “Q”. It isn’t quite as simple as that necessarily, but the two-source hypothesis is the best explanation so far.

[/quote]Here are a few:
Acts 16:12
From there we traveled to Philippi, a Roman colony and the leading city of that district of Macedonia. And we stayed there several days.
Acts 20:6
But we sailed from Philippi after the Feast of Unleavened Bread, and five days later joined the others at Troas, where we stayed seven days.
Acts 21:4
Finding the disciples there, we stayed with them seven days. Through the Spirit they urged Paul not to go on to Jerusalem.
Acts 21:7
We continued our voyage from Tyre and landed at Ptolemais, where we greeted the brothers and stayed with them for a day.
Acts 21:8
Leaving the next day, we reached Caesarea and stayed at the house of Philip the evangelist, one of the Seven.
Acts 28:1
Once safely on shore, we found out that the island was called Malta.
Acts 28:12
We put in at Syracuse and stayed there three days.
There are more.[/quote]
You understand that the scholarly attitude to this is that the author of Luke-Acts used oral tradition to retell these stories years later in the first person plural, don’t you. This is reportage of “we” claims passed down by oral tradition. The author didn’t actually accompany Paul, and apparently didn’t have access to any of Paul’s epistles either.

Quote

And here come more of the ever-shrinking hoops you'd like me to jump through for your entertainment.

By all means continue to be entertaining.

Quote

Mark 14:20
“It is one of the Twelve,” he replied, “one who dips bread into the bowl with me.
Do you suppose there were others in that upper room, but they weren't allowed to eat?

It doesn’t say anything about who was present in addition to “the twelve”, or who was and wasn’t allowed to eat. You are making up your own gospel.

Quote

I'll take that as your defeat.

How??

Quote

You said there were no eyewitnesses, and I gave you John, who eye witnessed the ministry, crucifixion, and Jesus after he had been raised from the dead.

No, if you could be BOTHERED TO READ WHAT I WRITE, it is that there are no EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS. That means there are no accounts written by eyewitnesses. You cannot support your claim that “John” was present for any of this. And my suggestion to you is that the gospels, your only source for this claim, are undermined by the inconsistencies. I am not relying on gospels for this, you are, remember. This “John” is the only one to use the term the Beloved Disciple, and I don't think you have dispatched Dan Brown, let alone any other objections to your blinkered traditional view.

Quote

The one who wrote these things said he saw these things. I have no reason to doubt him. And your reasons are severely wanting – reasons such as: Well, I've never PERSONALLY seen anyone walk on water, or walk again after being executed. So what? I've never PERSONALLY seen a lot of the miraculous things that happen around us each and every day. That doesn't mean they don't happen.

No eyewitness accounts of Jesus then. Thanks for clearing that up for us.

Stuart

September 7, 2012 at 12:19 pm#311897

Participant

Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 07 2012,23:04)

Hi Stuart,

See it was all for the reaction as I have suggested.

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

And indeed the reaction you have provided!

Stuart

September 7, 2012 at 12:27 pm#311899