EPTOn October 04 2013 16:29 sam!zdat wrote:
what's your source for all of that
what's your source for all of that
You tell me.
The Progressive Faith in the Christian Life - Page 24
| Blogs > IronManSC |
|
IronManSC
United States2119 Posts
You tell me. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
IronManSC
United States2119 Posts
| ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
IronManSC
United States2119 Posts
On October 04 2013 16:29 sam!zdat wrote: edit: also please explain how somebody who knows how to write like an educated greek was one of the people following some hebrew prophet around? John was an eyewitness of Christ and was even one of his disciples, and in the Gospel of John he aims toward the divinity of Jesus, who he is, his power, and that he is the only source of eternal life. Explain to me why getting some philosophical education a few years later suddenly omits his fellowship with God? If you're trying to make a point that education is supreme over everything ever created, and that the smarter you get the more your past means nothing, then what do you say about Paul, who himself was highly educated and then became nothing when he followed Christ and became the greatest Apostle? | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
tolle lege tolle lege: http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-152/lecture-11 | ||
|
IronManSC
United States2119 Posts
On October 05 2013 02:21 sam!zdat wrote: nobody with the social status of the disciples of christ would have possibly ever learned to write and philosophize like an educated greek, that's just ignorance about the ancient world if you think that is possible. there's not a land grant university in 1st century galilee brah. nobody of that culture and social strata would have ever thought to say something like "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with god, and the word was god." that's some straight up greek stuff man tolle lege tolle lege: http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-152/lecture-11 John wasn't written until around 80-90 A.D. Are you telling me in all that spare time he couldn't have increased his knowledge? I want to know what your whole point is here. Are you trying to prove that he was so philosophically educated that therefore he wasn't a follower of Christ, that only followers are uneducated no-lifes? Or are you saying the Gospel of John is simply false because he focused more on the power and deity of Christ and not his life? | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
The gospel of john is certainly "false" in a naive sense about historical accuracy. whether or not it is valuable is another question altogether. certainly I am the most uneasy with the gospel of john because of its extreme sectarianism (this is also why you like to quote it, because you are a sectarian). On the other hand, what is most INTERESTING about christianity is that it is the product of the intersection of greek and hebrew thought, and john is the most hellenistic gospel (although hellenistic people who are trying to separate themselves in a very extreme way from their social milieu). don't base your faith on the historical truth of unreliable textual documents, the only way to make that work is to lie to yourself and twist yourself into insane delusional knots. that's just playing the atheist's game anyway. was the council of nicaea divinely inspired? what's so fancy about the texts they chose in 325? there were LOTS of texts purporting to be gospels of jesus, how do you know they picked the right ones? that's not faith in god, that's faith in the council of nicaea, and that sounds like blasphemy to me | ||
|
Mothra
United States1448 Posts
| ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
When it comes to the importing of Greek philosophy into scripture, it's pretty much completely absent in the synoptics and only enters into the Bible with John and some of the Pauline epistles. Historically it's a later development and Christ himself doesn't speak of Greek influenced themes. This isn't really a problem in-itself but it does point out to a historical development that can make the theological themes of John questionable at times. | ||
|
Hryul
Austria2609 Posts
On October 05 2013 02:40 IronManSC wrote: John wasn't written until around 80-90 A.D. Are you telling me in all that spare time he couldn't have increased his knowledge? I want to know what your whole point is here. Are you trying to prove that he was so philosophically educated that therefore he wasn't a follower of Christ, that only followers are uneducated no-lifes? Or are you saying the Gospel of John is simply false because he focused more on the power and deity of Christ and not his life? You do know that it's a slight problem, because the life expectation in the 1st century wasn't 80 years. This makes it unlikely that it was the Apostle John. But it could just be another test of faith since god moves in mysterious ways. | ||
|
HardlyNever
United States1258 Posts
On October 05 2013 02:21 sam!zdat wrote: nobody with the social status of the disciples of christ would have possibly ever learned to write and philosophize like an educated greek, that's just ignorance about the ancient world if you think that is possible. there's not a land grant university in 1st century galilee brah. nobody of that culture and social strata would have ever thought to say something like "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with god, and the word was god." that's some straight up greek stuff man tolle lege tolle lege: http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-152/lecture-11 Oh really? How do you explain Apollonius and, more importantly, Damis? | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On October 05 2013 04:37 HardlyNever wrote: Oh really? How do you explain Apollonius and, more importantly, Damis? you mean... two greeks? | ||
|
HardlyNever
United States1258 Posts
That are classically trained and educated in greek scholastic tradition... that wander around the Mediterranean and middle east with weirdo prophecies... at the same time Jesus supposedly did... | ||
|
Awesomedrifter
Canada62 Posts
On October 05 2013 04:13 Hryul wrote: You do know that it's a slight problem, because the life expectation in the 1st century wasn't 80 years. This makes it unlikely that it was the Apostle John. But it could just be another test of faith since god moves in mysterious ways. You do know life expetancy is an average and there will always be outliers. Further more the life expectancy was brought down from high infant mortality. Its quire possible for someone to live to 80 years in the 1st century, although it would be rarer then it is today. | ||
|
Janaan
United States381 Posts
On October 05 2013 02:21 sam!zdat wrote: nobody with the social status of the disciples of christ would have possibly ever learned to write and philosophize like an educated greek, that's just ignorance about the ancient world if you think that is possible. there's not a land grant university in 1st century galilee brah. nobody of that culture and social strata would have ever thought to say something like "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with god, and the word was god." that's some straight up greek stuff man tolle lege tolle lege: http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-152/lecture-11 I'm curious about something. Do you believe in the event known as Pentecost as it is described in the book of Acts? For those unfamiliar, this is the day when the disciples were gathered together and the Spirit of God came down upon them and they began speaking in different languages that they had never known before in order to spread the Gospel to the people coming to Jerusalem for a feast day. According to Acts, that day Peter delivered a sermon/speech in a way that he never would have been able to before the Spirit came down on him. That day, all the disciples were changed drastically. I don't think it's far fetched that John the Disciple was given the ability to minister directly to the educated greeks and philosophers and God gave him the ability to write the Gospel in the way that he did. Of course he would not have been able to do this when he was with Jesus. With the Holy Spirit, though, he can. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On October 05 2013 04:51 HardlyNever wrote: That are classically trained and educated in greek scholastic tradition... that wander around the Mediterranean and middle east with weirdo prophecies... at the same time Jesus supposedly did... why don't you read the second sentence in the wikipedia article you linked about apollonius @Janaan: I don't believe that a single word of Acts is historically accurate, no | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On October 04 2013 15:42 sam!zdat wrote: John was written like 80 years after the death of christ. Matthew and Luke both used Mark for a source (Mark is the oldest of the canonical gospels). Matthew was written for a jewish community, not gentile, and you will notice if you compare the texts that Matthew quotes Mark but edits out parts that would be offensive for Jews. The gospel of John is completely different (not a "synoptic" gospel) and was written much later and contains a much more elaborate theology highly influenced by greek philosophy. you will notice that the gospel of john begins with "in the beginning was the word." this is not a coincidence, as anybody who knows the first thing about greek philosophy will know that "word" or "logos" is a central part of that tradition. jesus himself would have known basically nothing about greek philosophy or anything about the logos or whatever. everything in John, which is the most theologically elaborate gospel, was written way later and under the influence of greek philosophy especially Plotinus. The Johannine author was also a sectarian who was totally paranoid about all people who were not part of his cult. John is interesting, but you can't trust anything that John says about the historical Jesus, it's just not a reliable source. For example, the trial of Jesus. You think the Roman overlords needed a TRIAL to crucify some annoying jewish heretic? there was no trial it's all made up. it's just an excuse for Johannine author to put elaborate theological theories in the mouth of the character "Jesus". edit: but please, don't listen to me, go take in some actual, serious scholarship about the hebrew bible and new testament at oyc.yale.edu, under "religious studies." it's SUCH a fascinating book and deserves to be taken seriously, not fetishized. if I didn't care so passionately about ancient texts and believe that they are too valuable to be misused in the way that you misuse them, I would not be here arguing with you about it. If you actually care about this text as much as you claim to (and not just care about getting to feel you are better than everyone else because you have the TRUTH and they are going to hell, like the vain sinner that you are) go actually try to learn something about it and the people who produced it. Try to understand why it mattered to them, and try to learn something from their experience. That is the ONLY way to make it matter in the modern world, not just blindly applying it to a totally different context like some uncritical moron. It's so fucking disrespectful to the text it makes me want to scream. It's not literally true, THEY didn't think it was literally true in the way in which you conceive this notion, so stop treating it that way, it's just disrespectful and intellectually dishonest and YOU FUCKING KNOW IT BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT AN IDIOT AND YOU ARE SMARTER THAN THAT. Plotinus wasn't born till a hundred years after Gospel of John was written | ||
|
HardlyNever
United States1258 Posts
On October 05 2013 05:07 sam!zdat wrote: why don't you read the second sentence in the wikipedia article you linked about apollonius @Janaan: I don't believe that a single word of Acts is historically accurate, no Well of course they put that shit in there. But couldn't you say that about jesus and all the apostles? That's an absolutely terrible response. Hardly any of this is "known with certainty." My point is your argument doesn't make a lot of sense, when considering who you are arguing with. This is a guy who believes there is an invisible man in the sky with 0 evidence. All I was pointing out was that there was at least a possible precedent for someone like John. Is it unlikely? Definitely. Is it a greater than 0% chance? Yes. Ironman believes most of what he believes with 0 evidence, and now he has a greater than 0 evidence reason to believe it?!? That's like, winning the lottery. It is certainly not probable that someone who was classically trained in greek philosophy would follow around a random doomsday prophet in the first century AD. But it isn't impossible. Look at what that guy above me wrote. He thinks that shit is real. And you're simply going to argue against what is unlikely? | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On October 05 2013 05:13 IgnE wrote: Plotinus wasn't born till a hundred years after Gospel of John was written well shit. other neoplatonists then @above: it's not just what is unlikely (although it is and I don't believe any greeks followed jesus), the tone of John goes completely against the philosophical content of the synoptic gospels which don't display any greek influence. edit: but it's true. I don't think jesus ever claimed to be the son of god either, and I rather think he'd have been appalled at the idea, so we are certainly not working from the same basic assumptions, ironman and I | ||
| ||
