“xcntrik.wordpres s.com”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#444575 Feb 13, 2013
Juicylu wrote:
<quoted text>
There are no wrong parts. I'm sorry you don't understand it.
A Christian that is ignorant about their own Bible.

Big surprise, huh!

“xcntrik.wordpres s.com”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#444576 Feb 13, 2013
Chess Jurist wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not a biblical scholar, but I play one on Topix.
This writer was writing to a large audience -- the churches of Asia Minor.
Assuming his audience would understand who he was and would not confuse him with being the son of Zebedee, then he had to have been well known.
John the Presbyter seems to have fit that bill.
And if George the Sinner and another writer whose name I've forgotten were correct and there was an early tradition that the Apostle John died in Jerusalem before the fall of the temple at the hands of an angry mob, it might have been a given who this John was and his name carried weight.
OK. maybe we should call Ehrman and get the real answer.
Except that didn't actually answer the question.

Wanna see it a little differently?

Why should the criteria for determining authorship of RevJohn be different than all the other apocalypses who attribute the writings to notable characters from a previous time.

Take Daniel for instance; one of the few books in the Bible that can be comfortably dated to within a couple of years, c. 164. The margin of authorship between the character and the writing is greater, but the idea is the same.

RevJohn is the only apocalypse that I am aware of where some* try to argue that because the author claims to be John (any John), he is considered the actual author.

I think that just like Daniel, RevJohn as pseudepigrapha should be entertained.

Are you familiar with any other ancient apocalypse where the attributed author is considered* the actual author?(*aside from conservative apologists, of course)

Since: Jul 08

Columbus, OH

#444577 Feb 13, 2013
Xcntrik InVidor wrote:
<quoted text>
Except that didn't actually answer the question.
Wanna see it a little differently?
Why should the criteria for determining authorship of RevJohn be different than all the other apocalypses who attribute the writings to notable characters from a previous time.
Take Daniel for instance; one of the few books in the Bible that can be comfortably dated to within a couple of years, c. 164. The margin of authorship between the character and the writing is greater, but the idea is the same.
RevJohn is the only apocalypse that I am aware of where some* try to argue that because the author claims to be John (any John), he is considered the actual author.
I think that just like Daniel, RevJohn as pseudepigrapha should be entertained.
Are you familiar with any other ancient apocalypse where the attributed author is considered* the actual author?(*aside from conservative apologists, of course)
I think I posted something similar not too long ago.

Ehrman in Forged treats the author as legit, if I recall, but does not go into any detail, again that I recall.

In looking at it in light of Ehrman holding that it wasn't pseudepigrapha, I see his point and can construct a case that a well-known John actually wrote it with no fraud intended.

That doesn't make it so. But I think it is possible.

I also don't know that all apocalypses were pseudepigrapha. I'll take your word for it. But comparing Rev. just to other apocalypses may artificially limiting. Why are they different from letters or gospels or other texts when it comes to such material?

Since: Jul 08

Columbus, OH

#444578 Feb 13, 2013
may artificially - may be artificially

“The who whating how with huh?”

Since: Dec 12

Earth

#444579 Feb 13, 2013
Chess Jurist wrote:
Let's see now, texts rejected in the canonization process were demonic just a few posts before, but now that you realize one that was rejected nevertheless is quoted in the canon, it is merely extra-biblical.

And I understand exactly what the Bible is: It is a varying collection of texts written over about a thousand years by many authors -- men who sometime used false names to give their text authority they otherwise would not have carried; men who copied from other men and freely modified what they copied when it suited them, men who sometimes added to existing texts or deleted from them.

The Bible, in its various forms, represents decisions by yet other men about what to include or exclude in their collections of "scripture" written by earlier men, knowing full well that some of the texts they included were bogus.

Origin, who as Tertullian thought highly of Enoch, just as the author of Jude must have too, recognized 2 Peter as a popular fraud. A text ostensibly written by a man who is described in Acts as uneducated, a text that copies wholesale from Jude, and a text that all non-theologically motivated scholars (and many who are theologically motivated) recognize as exactly what Origin thought it was.

Men writing disparate and conflicting thoughts in numerous texts over roughly a thousand years and chosen from other texts with much rancor and disagreement by yet other men, and now argued over by men and women who all think they have the holy spirit guiding them.

That is your Bible.
Wow. That's a really long post.

“The who whating how with huh?”

Since: Dec 12

Earth

#444580 Feb 13, 2013
Chess Jurist wrote:
Let's see now, texts rejected in the canonization process were demonic just a few posts before, but now that you realize one that was rejected nevertheless is quoted in the canon, it is merely extra-biblical.

And I understand exactly what the Bible is: It is a varying collection of texts written over about a thousand years by many authors -- men who sometime used false names to give their text authority they otherwise would not have carried; men who copied from other men and freely modified what they copied when it suited them, men who sometimes added to existing texts or deleted from them.

The Bible, in its various forms, represents decisions by yet other men about what to include or exclude in their collections of "scripture" written by earlier men, knowing full well that some of the texts they included were bogus.

Origin, who as Tertullian thought highly of Enoch, just as the author of Jude must have too, recognized 2 Peter as a popular fraud. A text ostensibly written by a man who is described in Acts as uneducated, a text that copies wholesale from Jude, and a text that all non-theologically motivated scholars (and many who are theologically motivated) recognize as exactly what Origin thought it was.

Men writing disparate and conflicting thoughts in numerous texts over roughly a thousand years and chosen from other texts with much rancor and disagreement by yet other men, and now argued over by men and women who all think they have the holy spirit guiding them.

That is your Bible.
Oh and for all your writing and semantics, you still don't seem to know what the Bible is. I'll tell you, it is The Word of God dearest, only words approved by God are in it.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#444581 Feb 13, 2013
The Worlds Biggest Lie wrote:
<quoted text>
You obviously didn't read the entire post. I stated that in both scenarios they will be deficient of either a father or a mother. There can be no denying this fact. But because of money, votes, and vice our no good polititians continue to place children in harms way. Some say this even constitutes as child traficking to place a child into a home where two people forfeited the natural ability to conceive a child and forfeiting the parenting process entirely. There's no way around it except for the fact that this govt is owned and run by the decadent devil himself. And it is. Just ask the Muslims.
But what can be shown is that it doesn't matter. Kids grow up just fine even with same sex couples as parents. In fact, kids with loving and nurturing same sex parents will do FAR better than kids raised by negligent or abusive biological parents.

Since: Jul 08

Columbus, OH

#444582 Feb 13, 2013
Juicylu wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow. That's a really long post.
Juicylu wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh and for all your writing and semantics, you still don't seem to know what the Bible is. I'll tell you, it is The Word of God dearest, only words approved by God are in it.
Ya'd think BibleGod could do better than pretending an illiterate fisher wrote a letter that was in fair measure swiped from the author of Jude.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#444583 Feb 13, 2013
Chess Jurist wrote:
<quoted text>
I think I posted something similar not too long ago.
Ehrman in Forged treats the author as legit, if I recall, but does not go into any detail, again that I recall.
In looking at it in light of Ehrman holding that it wasn't pseudepigrapha, I see his point and can construct a case that a well-known John actually wrote it with no fraud intended.
That doesn't make it so. But I think it is possible.
I also don't know that all apocalypses were pseudepigrapha. I'll take your word for it. But comparing Rev. just to other apocalypses may artificially limiting. Why are they different from letters or gospels or other texts when it comes to such material?
It was not pseudopigraphia for the simple reason that the author merely identifies himself as "John of Padmos" without trying to claim that he was the apostle John or the author of GoJohn.

Oh and for anyone else reading this that wants to learn about the Bible and where & how it came to its current form, I highly recommend several of the books by Bart D, Erhman.

“The who whating how with huh?”

Since: Dec 12

Earth

#444584 Feb 13, 2013
Janitor Of The LORD wrote:
<quoted text>I wasn't the one debating. I had already stated several times that I do not follow church doctrine and dogma so the entire thing is irrelevant to me. I don't focus on details that change nothing now or later. The big picture is much clearer.
Amen <3
What does man have without God? Arguments with and about man, misery and anger too it seems.

“The who whating how with huh?”

Since: Dec 12

Earth

#444585 Feb 13, 2013
Snevaeh legna wrote:
<quoted text>I had a Fig tree growing up. Didn't need much care, and it was fun picking, peeling, and eating them right off the tree!:)
Oooh... I'd love a Fig tree :D Nice to see you sweets <3

“The who whating how with huh?”

Since: Dec 12

Earth

#444586 Feb 13, 2013
McStomp wrote:
<quoted text>See, Ego Christian, there you go lying again. He wasn't trying to "prove her quote false". Why Ego Christians always fall into the same pattern?
Why do trolls always repeat themselves and never make any sense?
Gut Stomper

Lawrenceburg, TN

#444587 Feb 13, 2013
Hehehe...

“The who whating how with huh?”

Since: Dec 12

Earth

#444588 Feb 13, 2013
G_O_D wrote:
<quoted text>Just to please all the anal fucktards who would rather nitpick than grasp an idea.

Helen Keller may have seen a star before she was a year and a half old.

What a bunch of aholes.

Hellen Keller was amazing. You anal retentive peckerheads are pathetic.
Name calling? Lol... How scholarly of you :p

“The who whating how with huh?”

Since: Dec 12

Earth

#444589 Feb 13, 2013
T-Town Clown wrote:
<quoted text>The Lord Jesus told them to
O_O

“The who whating how with huh?”

Since: Dec 12

Earth

#444590 Feb 13, 2013
T-Town Clown wrote:
<quoted text>The holy bible really bothers you huh Annie..
I really think it does, unless she want to use it to tell us how to be good Christians. That reminds me of a church sign I saw yesterday; "Dear Lord, please make the bad people good and the good people nice." It reminded me of topix.

“The who whating how with huh?”

Since: Dec 12

Earth

#444591 Feb 13, 2013
T-Town Clown wrote:
<quoted text>nah it gets to you and your god satan
Yep. Sure does, so much so that he breaks out in fits of incoherent babbling. It's fascinating really.

“The who whating how with huh?”

Since: Dec 12

Earth

#444592 Feb 13, 2013
McStomp wrote:
<quoted text>1. Apparently you've never read your own posts. They are comedy gold.

2. Yep, the mark of the Ego Christian.
You could at least be funny. Too angry huh? Poor lil' troll, dw, Jesus loves you as well.

“The who whating how with huh?”

Since: Dec 12

Earth

#444593 Feb 13, 2013
T-Town Clown wrote:
<quoted text>Christians aren't perfect just forgivin....

Bro. Clownie
Also, saved.

Praise Jesus!

“ IT'S A CHOICE !!!”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#444594 Feb 13, 2013
Xcntrik InVidor wrote:
<quoted text>
Why then would you think that the Montanists were wrong?
If you say the Bible, then you've agreed with my point, since your opinion came from the book compiled by those who considered Montanism a heresy.
If you say that it is your own personal revelation then you are more in agreement with the Montanists than you realize.
BTW, ignore the grey noise in the background.
, you know I wouldn't do that you

Sorry X, I'm not ignoring, you know I wouldn't do that to you... Lol I'm in and out all day... I just got home. I will answer your question as soon as I get settled...:)

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 12 min Innocent Holy dr ... 603,691
What Your Church Won't Tell You by Dave and Gar... (Apr '10) 13 min Protester 33,136
Play "end of the word" (Jan '11) 19 min Trunketeer 4,966
Macy's Parade - Bah Humbug! 23 min Protester 1
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 26 min Remnant of 144000 39,166
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 29 min River Tam 765,080
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 35 min June VanDerMark 555,038
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 1 hr Pegasus 263,608
Hot gays in Abu Dhabi (Nov '13) 2 hr Ayyan 1,187

Top Stories People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE