My Opinion: No Piercing At Jesus' Side

[Ben_Masada]

Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveLohr

On a slightly more serious note, your argument is circular. Reduced to its essentials, it is merely that Judaism, as you understand it is the only way. Anything that doesn’t conform with it is a fraud. The Gospel of John doesn’t conform with your understanding, and is therefore a fraud. Why don’t you present evidence that my argument is wrong? I presented a series of facts to establish the authorship of the the Gospel of John. Find contradictory evidence and present it. That way, we are most likely to discover the truth.
Regards,
SteveLohr

Ben-You just proved my point.

Regards,
SteveLohr

Well, let’s start with chapter one. The doctrine of the Logos. We all know that John refers to Jesus when he says that the Word was God, Who made Himself flesh in Jesus, by being born of a virgin whthout a human father. And likewise, we all know that this is not Jewish. That’s an adaptation from Greek Mythology. Then, no wonder, considering that Paul, the founder of Christianity was Greek and par excellence, a former Hellenistic Jew. And before you say that he was not the one who wrote the fourth gospel, the writer of that gospel was a Pauline disciple.

 

[Ben_Masada]

And most of all, God is the one who is God and who knows better than any one of us how to be, and act like, God! I will keep stressing this as many times as needed. For a number of you Jews (and also of Christians, even Catholics, Muslims and others) are rather good at suggesting to God how He should and must act as God!

You have just described the whole of the Catholic Church for deciding that God made Himself flesh in Jesus to die for the sins of the world. This is a prime example of suggesting of how God should and must act.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Just the 4th Gospel, Ben? How about the 3 others?

All the four gospels. All the NT. When I said that only 20 percent is worthy believing, I meant the whole NT. There is just too much non-Jewish stuff within the four gospels.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Frankly, it’s not quite the way you sound on your threads. Certain things you affirm implies that you’d know the God of Judaism much more than you really do… Really!

And I call this only a scratching of the surfice. Imagine if I could live a thousand years! I would take possession of more knowledge about God than Moses did.

 

[SteveLohr]

Well, let’s start with chapter one. The doctrine of the Logos. We all know that John refers to Jesus when he says that the Word was God, Who made Himself flesh in Jesus, by being born of a virgin whthout a human father. And likewise, we all know that this is not Jewish. That’s an adaptation from Greek Mythology. Then, no wonder, considering that Paul, the founder of Christianity was Greek and par excellence, a former Hellenistic Jew. And before you say that he was not the one who wrote the fourth gospel, the writer of that gospel was a Pauline disciple.

Ben-I think we are talking past each other. As I understand it, your argument is that the apostle John can not possibly be the author of the Gospel of John because this gospel contains too many Greek elements. If this is your argument, I believe that it relies on at least three assumptions, none of which are proven: 1) That your understanding of a “Greekless” Judaism is the only possible understanding; 2) That the alleged “Greek” elements in the Gospel of John are in fact alien to Judaism; and 3) That the real Apostle John could not have possibly altered his understanding of Judaism.

On the other hand, I have presented multiple arguments based on historical witnesses and circumstantial evidence that the Gospel of John was in fact written by the apostle John. This evidence is summarized as follows:

1. John claims authorship in the gospel; (John 19:35; 21:24)
2. Irenaeus relays that he, (Irenaeus) was told by Polycarp, who was a student of John’s, that John wrote the gospel ;( Adversus Haereses 3.1.1 A copy of this can be found at
   newadvent.org/fathers/0103.htm or at wesley.nnc.edu/noncanon/fathers.htm)
3. the Muratorian fragment appears to confirm John’s authorship; (See v. 9-15. Available at bible-researcher.com/muratorian.html.)
4. Origen indicates John wrote the Gospel; (“Commentary on John”, Book V.3. Available at ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf09.xv.iii.iv.iii.html)
5. Circumstantial detail in the gospel of John is consistent with eyewitness testamony; (Note: I won’t provide citations for this, as it is an entirely different discussion. I will simply state that the Book of John shows a considerable amount of seemingly irrelevant detail that is consistent with eyewitness testimony. I’d be happy to delve into this in additional detail in a separate post, if you are interested)
6. There is no testimonial or documenary evidence from the 1st or 2nd century that contradicts John’s authorship. (Geisler, Norman L, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999, p. 389)

Regards,
SteveLohr

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben-I think we are talking past each other. As I understand it, your argument is that the apostle John can not possibly be the author of the Gospel of John because this gospel contains too many Greek elements. If this is your argument, I believe that it relies on at least three assumptions, none of which are proven: 1) That your understanding of a “Greekless” Judaism is the only possible understanding; 2) That the alleged “Greek” elements in the Gospel of John are in fact alien to Judaism; and 3) That the real Apostle John could not have possibly altered his understanding of Judaism.

On the other hand, I have presented multiple arguments based on historical witnesses and circumstantial evidence that the Gospel of John was in fact written by the apostle John. This evidence is summarized as follows:

1. John claims authorship in the gospel; (John 19:35; 21:24)
2. Irenaeus relays that he, (Irenaeus) was told by Polycarp, who was a student of John’s, that John wrote the gospel ;( Adversus Haereses 3.1.1 A copy of this can be found at
   newadvent.org/fathers/0103.htm or at wesley.nnc.edu/noncanon/fathers.htm)
3. the Muratorian fragment appears to confirm John’s authorship; (See v. 9-15. Available at bible-researcher.com/muratorian.html.)
4. Origen indicates John wrote the Gospel; (“Commentary on John”, Book V.3. Available at ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf09.xv.iii.iv.iii.html)
5. Circumstantial detail in the gospel of John is consistent with eyewitness testamony; (Note: I won’t provide citations for this, as it is an entirely different discussion. I will simply state that the Book of John shows a considerable amount of seemingly irrelevant detail that is consistent with eyewitness testimony. I’d be happy to delve into this in additional detail in a separate post, if you are interested)
6. There is no testimonial or documenary evidence from the 1st or 2nd century that contradicts John’s authorship. (Geisler, Norman L, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999, p. 389)

Regards,
SteveLohr

Do you remember when Jesus said that the tree is known by its fruits? Yes, you do. John, the Apostle could never have written that gospel. Not only for the Hellenistic character of the book but also for the tendency to blame the Jews for the death of Jesus. And if you read chapter 8, you will see that the guy was a Gentile and even Jesus was not Jewish.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Revelation 1:5

and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead and ruler of the kings of the earth. To him who loves us and has freed us 5 from our sins by his blood,

6

who has made us into a kingdom, priests for his God and Father, to him be glory and power forever (and ever). Amen.

7

Behold, he is coming amid the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him. All the peoples of the earth will lament him. Yes. Amen.

 

[Lapell]

Well, let’s start with chapter one. The doctrine of the Logos. We all know that John refers to Jesus when he says that the Word was God, Who made Himself flesh in Jesus, by being born of a virgin whthout a human father. And likewise, we all know that this is not Jewish. That’s an adaptation from Greek Mythology. Then, no wonder, considering that Paul, the founder of Christianity was Greek and par excellence, a former Hellenistic Jew. And before you say that he was not the one who wrote the fourth gospel, the writer of that gospel was a Pauline disciple.

That doctrine was actually meant to be put specifically in opposition with gnoses in the Greek world which a number of Jews knew about and maybe adopted. The word Logos may have been used in those mystery gnoses, but the author of the Gospel according to John used the word to signify that the one Logos the people should accept is the Word of God, and that Jesus of Nazareth is that Word of God made flesh, totally in accordance with God.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Isaiah 53:1

Who would believe what we have heard? To whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?

2

1 He grew up like a sapling before him, like a shoot from the parched earth; There was in him no stately bearing to make us look at him, nor appearance that would attract us to him.

3

2 He was spurned and avoided by men, a man of suffering, accustomed to infirmity, One of those from whom men hide their faces, spurned, and we held him in no esteem.

4

3 Yet it was our infirmities that he bore, our sufferings that he endured, While we thought of him as stricken, as one smitten by God and afflicted.

5

**But he was pierced for our offenses, crushed for our sins, Upon him was the chastisement that makes us whole, by his stripes we were healed. **
6

We had all gone astray like sheep, each following his own way; But the LORD laid upon him the guilt of us all.

7

Though he was harshly treated, he submitted and opened not his mouth; Like a lamb led to the slaughter or a sheep before the shearers, he was silent and opened not his mouth.

8

Oppressed and condemned, he was taken away, and who would have thought any more of his destiny? When he was cut off from the land of the living, and smitten for the sin of his people,

9

A grave was assigned him among the wicked and a burial place with evildoers, Though he had done no wrong nor spoken any falsehood.

10

4 (But the LORD was pleased to crush him in infirmity.) If he gives his life as an offering for sin, he shall see his descendants in a long life, and the will of the LORD shall be accomplished through him.

11

Because of his affliction he shall see the light in fullness of days; Through his suffering, my servant shall justify many, and their guilt he shall bear.

12

Therefore I will give him his portion among the great, and he shall divide the spoils with the mighty, Because he surrendered himself to death and was counted among the wicked; And he shall take away the sins of many, and win pardon for their offenses.

 

[Lapell]

I believe that some passages in the Torah were meant to be put in opposition with the practices of paganism, like the akeda. Why did God intervene personally through his angel to ask Abraham not to slay his son Isaac after having asked him to perform that sacrifice, if not to have it engrained in him and his descendants forever that never Israel should make sacrifices of other human lives the way the pagans around them had done and were still then doing.
Some people seem to say that some Jewish festivals actually were of pagan origin, forgetting that they were designed to move away the people forever from the unacceptable practices of paganism. Isn’t this true?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I believe that some passages in the Torah were meant to be put in opposition with the practices of paganism, like the akeda. Why did God intervene personally through his angel to ask Abraham not to slay his son Isaac after having asked him to perform that sacrifice, if not to have it engrained in him and his descendants forever that never Israel should make sacrifices of other human lives the way the pagans around them had done and were still then doing.
Some people seem to say that some Jewish festivals actually were of pagan origin, forgetting that they were designed to move away the people forever from the unacceptable practices of paganism. Isn’t this true?

Gabriel of 12;

I agree this is true; Israel also wanted to duplicate the worldly kingdoms by asking for a King to rule over them when God himself took care of them, so God allowed them a King. It is recorded also that Israel was not the only people with an “Ark” when they battled, other nations carried an “Ark” also.

 

[SteveLohr]

Do you remember when Jesus said that the tree is known by its fruits? Yes, you do. John, the Apostle could never have written that gospel. Not only for the Hellenistic character of the book but also for the tendency to blame the Jews for the death of Jesus. And if you read chapter 8, you will see that the guy was a Gentile and even Jesus was not Jewish.

Ben-I have read John 8 numerous times. What in it disproves the Jewishness of John? Regarding blaming the Jewish authorities for the death of Jesus. It is a historical fact that the Jewish authorities, in conjunction with the Romans, killed Jesus. Is there some historical reference you can provide to disprove this? (as an aside, I think this reinforces Jesus’ message, i.e., both Jew and Gentile turned away from Him, and He forgives both).

Regards,
SteveLohr

 

[Lapell]

Do you remember when Jesus said that the tree is known by its fruits? Yes, you do. John, the Apostle could never have written that gospel. Not only for the Hellenistic character of the book but also for the tendency to blame the Jews for the death of Jesus. And if you read chapter 8, you will see that the guy was a Gentile and even Jesus was not Jewish.

Pure speculation, Ben. Not just the Jews were honouring God. There used to be a place where the non-Jews could join in the Temple, the “God-fearing” people as they were refered to. But they were not allowed full participation, I guess, since they had to be apart and that a Jew who would go into their houses would be considered not kosher even though these non-Jews were adoring the One true God, the God that Israel has been worshipping…

 

[Lapell]

Mind you, I believe there was quite a good purpose in view when this was the rule. This God is like no other gods (actually fruits of the fertile fantasies and imagination of mankind, not real gods indeed!), so there had to be ways to make one see the reality of this.

 

[Lapell]

Pure speculation, Ben. Not just the Jews were honouring God. There used to be a place where the non-Jews could join in the Temple, the “God-fearing” people as they were refered to. But they were not allowed full participation, I guess, since they had to be apart and that a Jew who would go into their houses would be considered not kosher even though these non-Jews were adoring the One true God, the God that Israel has been worshipping…

And as for “John” blaming the Jews for Jesus’ condemnation, don’t worry, a Christian normally would limit the meaning of that blame only to those who stirred the crowd of Jews to shout: “Crucify him! Crucify him!” and , in a lesser degree, those who shouted.
We agree with Peter: “I know you and your leaders did it out of ignorance” (Acts 2). As for who wrote The Protocol of the Sages of Zion, I am afraid he or they did more to stir antisemitism against the Jews than any crucifixion story ever did.
Also, have you ever read Chaim Potok’s novel “The Gift of Asher Lev”, a sequel to “My Name Is Asher Lev”. The author is Jewish (if he is still alive, he would be 80 or 81 years old, I believe… Well, in it, Asher Lev’s cousin violently beat him in the back of a synagogue, and had not other men intervened, I think he would have killed him. Asher Lev had painted something he titled " Brooklyn crucifixion", which angered his parents and the Jews of his congregation. The Rebbe had sent him to Paris and many years after, Asher was back with his wife and their boy at his parents’. One of his cousin still had a strong gut disgust against him, thinking that Asher didn’t deserve to stay alive. He also kept making anonymous threat calls to Asher, the last of which Asher finally replied something to which the other one replied something that sounded just like his cousin’s manner of speech, which quite made the idenfication feasible…
Do such things happen among Jews nowadays at times? No matter the wrong, such a way of punishing their authors, especially when they are not crimes per se, seems rather shocking to me! Your thoughts?

 

[Ben_Masada]

Pure speculation, Ben. Not just the Jews were honouring God. There used to be a place where the non-Jews could join in the Temple, the “God-fearing” people as they were refered to. But they were not allowed full participation, I guess, since they had to be apart and that a Jew who would go into their houses would be considered not kosher even though these non-Jews were adoring the One true God, the God that Israel has been worshipping…

**Lapel, I know what being Jewish is. 80 percent of the gospels is not Jewish. Therefore, not true. **