Comments
419,581 - 419,600 of 441,186 Comments Last updated 10 hrs ago

“xcntrik.wordpres s.com”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#444558 Feb 13, 2013
Duststomp wrote:
<quoted text>Which one?
Pick a John, any John.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#444559 Feb 13, 2013
Janitor Of The LORD wrote:
<quoted text>
No pessimist ever discovered the secret of the stars or sailed an uncharted land, or opened a new doorway for the human spirit.
-Helen Keller
I would say many here are quite pessimistic of the wonders that exist outside of our available senses. Some just cannot think outside of the safety of their little box. The proof they demand through man may only be discovered in their personal search of that which is beyond mans control.
You are conflating pessimist with skeptic, the two are not the same. You are just gullible.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#444560 Feb 13, 2013
waaasssuuup wrote:
<quoted text>
i understand the commonly held definition, sheldon...er...DOG, but it makes perfect sense to come to Jesus because of knowing where you'll stand if you don't.
So you pretend to believe "just in case?" That's called lying.

“xcntrik.wordpres s.com”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#444561 Feb 13, 2013
Snevaeh legna wrote:
<quoted text>
no.
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.

“Ungood doubleplus duckspeak.”

Since: Dec 12

Earth

#444562 Feb 13, 2013
G_O_D wrote:
<quoted text>Nope.
You are mistaiking "antichrist" in John's Epistles with "The Antichrist" of Christian invention.

A common error among those semi-literate in Proper English <wink>
Lol...

“Selected Marksman”

Since: Aug 08

Northern Virginia

#444563 Feb 13, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
So you pretend to believe "just in case?" That's called lying.
It works on criminals in prison...sort of...

“YO BOO”

Since: Sep 07

land of BOO

#444564 Feb 13, 2013
McStomp wrote:
<quoted text>Watching you two engage in mutual masturbation with three brain cells between you is its own reward.
Your obsession with masturbation is noted... jacking the mac

“Ungood doubleplus duckspeak.”

Since: Dec 12

Earth

#444565 Feb 13, 2013
Janitor Of The LORD wrote:
<quoted text>So many talk of the indoctrination to believe in God at a young age. The same can be said for the indoctrination to NOT believe what has not been scientifically proven, recorded, and accepted or cannot be seen or touched by most. Many are taught any such beliefs outside of those known factors is false and only of our imagination. There is no proof that the subconscious cannot be communicated with, particularly by a force powerful enough to create the heavens and earth and all that have lived within it.

Are you not aware of the senses we were given that remain inactive in many? Some of the same senses that animals possess. Why young children are so much perceptive to the outside forces before they are convinced we do not have that ability. Why many animals sense things that cannot be seen or even heard. Those that are blind generally develop those unused senses much more frequently than others.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/articl...

This is just a scientific link opposed to a spiritual one. The mind is a terrible thing to waste. It has much more possibility then many give it credit for. God created us. He most certainly has a means to communicate when He wishes. "Visions" of many of the prophets and of the book of Rev. comes to mind. I don't think they can be dismissed as mere dreams.
Great article but posting Science will just confuse him even more :)

“Ungood doubleplus duckspeak.”

Since: Dec 12

Earth

#444566 Feb 13, 2013
McStomp wrote:
<quoted text>This is the refutation of the Ego Christian, nothing more than assertion and ad hominem fallacies. Your Bible can not be used to prove your Bible. All it does, Ego Christian, is make you look even more foolish. Keep going. It suits you.
Thank you :)

“Ungood doubleplus duckspeak.”

Since: Dec 12

Earth

#444567 Feb 13, 2013
karl44 wrote:
<quoted text>think it over

nothing kills belief as fully as education
Lol...

“Ungood doubleplus duckspeak.”

Since: Dec 12

Earth

#444568 Feb 13, 2013
McStomp wrote:
<quoted text>You believe the whole Bible? Haha. Does that include all the wrong parts and all the contradictions, too? Weird.
There are no wrong parts. I'm sorry you don't understand it.

Since: Mar 10

Trussville, Alabama

#444569 Feb 13, 2013
Juicylu wrote:
<quoted text>
There are no wrong parts. I'm sorry you don't understand it.
So bats are birds then?

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#444570 Feb 13, 2013
Mr Wiggley wrote:
<quoted text>
It works on criminals in prison...sort of...
Yes, preying on the fears of other animals can easily sell snake oil, that should be the first clue that there's something wrong with religion. ;)

Since: Jul 08

Columbus, OH

#444571 Feb 13, 2013
Xcntrik InVidor wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is a question that I've wanted to ask biblical scholars for years.
In ancient apocalyptic literature, a "famous" person of the past is typically identified as the author of the text. This gives the writing both age and authority. I am not aware of a single apocalyptic writing where the author was actually the person to which the writing is attributed, except one.
Why should one consider that ApocJohn would be any different?
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.

Since: Jul 08

Columbus, OH

#444572 Feb 13, 2013
Duststomp wrote:
<quoted text>Which one?
If you're referring to Revelation vs. the Apocryphon of John, the Apocryphon is a 2nd century text written by someone pretending to be the Apostle John.

Since: Jul 08

Columbus, OH

#444573 Feb 13, 2013
Juicylu wrote:
<quoted text>
Great article but posting Science will just confuse him even more :)
Sour grapes.

Demonic texts -- that was a hoot.

“xcntrik.wordpres s.com”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#444574 Feb 13, 2013
Juicylu wrote:
<quoted text>
Great article but posting Science will just confuse him even more :)
Projection.

“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?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 7 min June VanDerMark 538,807
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 7 min It aint necessari... 732,794
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 10 min Porkpie Hat 257,861
Last Word + 2 14 min Hannah V 494
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 35 min Thinking 226,286
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 37 min Senecus 599,840
Difference between white masons and black masons (Apr '08) 45 min Dave 310
•••
Enter and win $5000

Top Stories People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••