Hey, guys!
I sign off a lot of my posts with "LOL". I thought it meant "Lots of Love".
My daughter just informed me that "LOL" means "Laughing Out Loud"
Oops! Be assured, I am not Laughing Out Loud when signing off!
Regards!
Oh hell, LOL,
Rod P.
I found a big ol' fat lie again in there!
by gumby 179 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Rod P
Hey Gumby! Hey People!
Is anybody out there?
Don't all die at once! This was the hottest thread going. Suddenly, silence! Why?
LOL
Rpd P.
-
OldSoul
Don't all die at once! This was the hottest thread going. Suddenly, silence! Why?
LOL
C'mon, Rod ... now that you know what it means, you are risking a disfellowshipping if you continue to misapply ... oops, flashbacks ... sorry.
(((Rpd))) I don't care if you do sign off laughing, you're alright.
-
Narkissos
I didn't read the whole thread so maybe this has been pointed out before.
The biggest problem imo with the John-Jesus chronological relationship is the distinct tradition that they were not contemporaries at all. This shows at least in two ways:
- in the popular belief that Jesus was John resurrected from the dead (Mark 6:14ff//; 8:28//).
- in the phrase "from the days of John the Baptist until now", put on Jesus' lips (Matthew 11:12).
Both are hardly understandable if Jesus and John were known as contemporaries.
-
Rod P
Narkissos: The scriptures you refer to in Mark and Matthew do not reflect a "distinct tradition" that Jesus Christ and John the Baptist were NOT contemporaries. Your scriptural references must be placed in a proper time context in order to understand what they mean. Firstly, let's look at Mark 6: 7, 12-20 (RSV): vs.7 And he (Jesus) called to him the twelve, and began to send them out two by two, and gave them authority over the unclean spirits..... vs.12 So they went out and preached that men should repent vs.13 And they cast out many demons, and anointed with oil many that were sick and healed them. vs.14 King Herod heard of it; for Jesus' name had become known. Some said "John the Baptizer has been raised from the dead; that is why these powers are at work in him. (i.e. Jesus)" vs.15 But others said, "It is Elijah." And others said, "It is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old." vs.16 But when Herod heard of it he said, "John, whom I beheaded, has been raised." vs.17 For Herod had sent and seized John, and bound him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip's wife; because he had married her. vs.18 For John said to Herod, "It is not lawful for you to have your brother's wife." vs.19 And Herodias had a grudge against him, and wanted to kill him. But she could not, vs.20 for Herod feared John, knowing that he was a righteous and holy man, and kept him safe. When he heard him, he was much perplexed; and yet he heard him gladly. Mark 8:27-28 says pretty much the same thing: vs.27 And Jesus went forth, and his disciples, into the villages of Caesarea Philippi: and on the way he asked his disciples, saying unto them, Who do men say that I am? vs.28 And they told him, saying, John the Baptist, and others, Elijah; but others One of the Prophets. From these verses we get the picture that Jesus sent his disciples out two by two, and they went all over the country preaching and performing miracles. This would give Jesus a high profile, and he started to become known all over, and so word of Jesus reached Herod, who was tetrarch over Galilee. So, some thought Jesus was John the Baptist who was risen, and not just Herod thought that. Some thought Jesus was Elija or Elias since they expected he would come just in advance of the Messiah, and would be risen. Others considered Jesus a Prophet, expecially given his miracles; but certainly not the Messiah. Herod is thought to have visited Jerusalem to attend the Passover. At the same time, Herod had just quite recently murdered John the Baptist, who he was convinced was an innocent man and a prophet. At the same time a lot of his circumstances, such as war, were faring very badly, like it was a kind of punishment from God, perhaps because of what he did to John. In his guilt, he may have worried that this Jesus he had been hearing so many stories and miracles about, was John the Baptist risen from the dead. It is thought that Herod feared John had risen when he heard that Jesus was visiting Jerusalem for the Passover. Mark 6:14 must be understood on the basis that Herod had already beheaded John, albeit recently. All these verse are proving is that they were spoken at a time when John the Baptist had recently been killed. They in no way establish that Jesus and John were not contemporaries. John and Jesus were cousins, and John was six months older than Jesus. In their day, a male was not considered an adult until they reached the age of thirty. Therefore, that is when both Jesus and John commenced their ministries. The beginning of John's ministry preceded the beginning of Jesus' ministry by six months. The beginning of Jesus' ministry was when he was baptized by John. In the account I explained to Gumby above, after Jesus was baptized by John, went into the wilderness for 40 days (in Judea), then to the wedding in Cana (Galilee), he later went to the Passover Celebration in Jerusalem (Judea), departing from Capernaum (Galilee), which celebration occurred Nisan 8 (March 23). After that, Jesus and his disciples went out into Judea and preached about the Kingdom of God and baptized new believer. At the same time, John and his disciples were out there preaching and baptizing, but in a different area. During this period of several months, John was not yet arrested, and so at this time John and Jesus were contemporaries. Now, during this period, Jesus and John and their respective disciples preached for about 6 or 7 months, after chich John teh Baptist was arrested and imprisoned by Herod. When that happened, Jesus and his disciples removed themselves from Judea, and went back to Galilee. Jesus' ministry continued, and he called his 12 apostles about one week before the 2nd Passover of his ministry (Nissan 14, or April 17 of that year). It was also shortly before this Passover Celebration that John the Baptist was beheaded. (Some claim it was in August) We could get into a lengthy treatise on these timelines with comparative chronologies from different sources. The point I am trying to make here is that all these scriputures we are examining need to be understood within the flow of events which happened over a significant period of time. After John was beheaded, Jesus continued on with his ministry for quite some time (about another yearO before being crucified. When Jesus arrived in Jerusalem to celebrate the 2nd Passover of his ministry, Jesus mentioned John the Baptist in the past tense, as though he were already dead: John 5:35 "He was the lamp that was burning and shining and you were willing to rejoice for a while in his light" So when you read:Matthew 11:12-14: vs.12 "From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingom of heaven has suffered violence, and men of violence take it by force. vs.13 "For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John, vs.14 and if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah who is to come." How are we to understand this? "From the days of John the Baptist until now" means from the time of the beginning of John the Baptist to the time that Jesus was giving this sermon on the kingdom of God (a period of about 3 years). ".....the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and men of violence take it by force." This is an analogy that God's Kingdom is like a besieged city, where men try to force an entrance, to enter prematurely. These people had preconceived ideas of this Kingdom, and they were trying to force the Kingdom to come and to blossum, instead of waiting for God's timing and keys for entering. "For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John". If we study the Old Testament, we see the work of a long series of prophets all prophesying of the coming of the Messiah and the Kingom of God. John the Baptist was at the end of this line, and his message was not prophecy, but rather an announcement that the Kingdom of God was at hand. So the point here is that Matthew 11:12 does NOT prove that Jesus and John were not contemporaries. Jesus and John were contemporaries except that in the middle of their two ministries, with concurrent and overlapping activities, John got beheaded. Jesus simply marked time from the period of John's ministry to Jesus' present when he delivered that statement, even though John died during that period. Some say it is "from the beginning of John's ministry" while others say "from the time that John had fulfilled his ministry." Either way, this does not nullify the argument that this scripture does NOT prove that they weren't contemporaries. Too many people are too willing to claim Biblical contradictions by putting Synoptic passages side-by-side and then making it look like the writers are all talking about the same time and the same event, when, in fact, they are not. Similarly, Narkissos, you are taking Mark and Matthew and citing them on the basis that Jesus was referring to John the Baptist in the past tense, and Herod was referring to John the same way, while Jesus was yet alive (i.e. not yet crucified), and then claiming that therefore proves Jesus and John were not contemporaries. I feel that is somewhat fallacious reasoning. LOL, Rod P.
-
Narkissos
Rod P,
I didn't mean to "prove" anything, just to point out what I still see as a "divergent tradition" in the overall Gospel construction.
Of course it is possible to explain away any apparent contradiction between the Gospels; but everyone of those attempts, however ingenuous, adds to the general improbability of taking all the details in Gospels accounts as historical (i.e., as different accounts of one history).
If, for instance, you accept Luke's claim that Jesus and John were cousins and knew each other from (before) birth, then you have to explain away John's explanation in GJohn:
This is he of whom I said, 'After me comes a man who ranks ahead of me because he was before me.' I myself did not know him; but I came baptizing with water for this reason, that he might be revealed to Israel."
I'm sure you have an explanation for that, but it will have to exceed what you can learn from either Luke or John. The result is: you don't read the Gospels as they were written, rather an apologetic diatessarôn which really never suits any of the individual Gospels. -
Dismembered
Shiff
Dismembered
-
Rod P
Narkissos:
I just submitted a rather lengthy post here to your attention, but it seems it did not arrive. If I can't find it, will have to redo it later.
Rod P.
-
Rod P
Narkissos:
Yes, I have an explanation for "I myself did not know him" in John 1:31, and I do not have to "exceed what you can learn from either Luke or John" to do it.
The answer is: Read the whole verse. "After me comes a man who ranks ahead of me because he was before me. I myself did not know him; but I came baptizing with water for this reason, that he might be revealed to Israel."
You seem to be suggesting that John the Baptist knew Jesus because ostensibly he never met him in person. But look again, more closely. Even if John had never met Jesus in person, he no doubt would have heard stories about Jesus, such as while he was growing up with his parents who certainly knew about Jesus, and John was certainly looking for the Messiah, and the signs that would enable him to recognize the Messiah. John was preaching that the Kingdom of God was at hand, or in other words, that the Messiah was here, which all the prophets before John were looking to find down thru the years. Now, when John baptized Jesus, and he came up out of the water, the heavens opened up and the Spirit of God descended upon him in the form of a dove, and a voice said "This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased." If I were there and I saw that happen, I would be pretty convinced that this was the Messiah, that this was the one God had chosen to be the Christ, and I would be running around Judea telling everyone this is the Messiah. So the proper understanding of the above scripture is that "I myself did not know him/recognize him as the Messiah, but now that I do know who he really is, I have been baptizing with water in order that Jesus might be revealed to Israel (as the Messiah)." So Israel, take a look. This is the Messiah you have been looking for all these generations!
You state that, (because you have to exceed or go beyond either Luke or John) that "The result is: you don't read the Gospels as they were written." Well you know, we do it all the time. We study the life and times of Jesus Christ by looking at the Synoptic Gospels, comparing Matthew with Luke, and Mark with John, and back and forth in any given order depending what's relevant. Each of the authors present their own version of Jesus Christ, and they don't say everything the same way, and one provides details and events the other did not mention, or describe the same event in a slightly different way. (I know that Mark pretty well got most of his information from Peter, almost like he was the "Ghost Writer" for Peter). This exercise is a way to "flesh out the details", and also one which clarifies a lot of chronological and geographic details and circumstances. I don't have a problem with that. I would still be reading the Gospels "as they were written".
You seem to suggest that the process of looking at all four of the gospel accounts by the method above, that this is an "apologetic diatessaron which really never suits any of the individual Gospels". IMO, comparing different accounts in all four books is a way to increase understanding or insight as to what is going on, where and when certain events took place, and also what the writer more precisely meant when stating such and such, because other authors on the same topic state it with a subtly different nuance. I think comparison, more often than not, "fleshes out the details", and also clarifies certain ambiguities, by examining the Gospels as a collective whole. The one thing I must be careful about, however, is that I don't start putting "words in the mouth of one author" based on what the other writer(s) state. I admit that sometimes mistakes can be made, but that does not mean it would be better to abandon the whole process, and just read each account individually without any regard for any of the other accounts. Overall, I think that on balance, this does suit the individual Gospels, mistakes notwithstanding. Similarly, examining external historical evidences from outside the Gospel accounts also adds significant clarification and understanding as to what was going on.
I know that down thru history there have been a number of attempts made to present the gospel accounts into a single narrative, to give it a smoother flow, and also to fit all of the pieces of the puzzle within that consolidated version, because one writer didn't mention something the other writer did, and so on. These efforts are quite useful, but I would still revert back to the Gospel accounts individually and as a group, because they are as close as you can get to the original accounts. The closer you are to the original, the less likely you are to become steeped in error.
LOL,
Rod P.
John lived all his own life down there in Judea, while Jesus grew up in Galilee. After Jesus and John are both 30 years of age and recognized as adults, Jesus travels down to see John in Judea to get baptized by John
-
PinTail
Your sure find those plump lies.
Shane