The "Gospel" Of John

To my knowledge, there is no verse(s) in the other gospels that corroborates John's statement in John 9:22: It is a reasonable statement though.In Matthew 26:63-66 Jesus acknowledges that he is, in fact, the Messiah and he is accused of blasphemy by the high priest and summarily sentenced to death-

no they weren't. it's a book. a book written by people. it can be destroyed and is thus NOT god. you have some idolotry issues.

solomon was rich and david had a grand army. why? because god gave it to them because they were faithful.there's lots to gain from religion because god says he will bless you.This message has been edited by brennakimi, 12-09-2004 04:27 PM

I got the info from a comentater so i can not prove that it is true but he obvesly knows more than I do cause he has studied the Bible thorughly. But can you prove that it is not true that the Jews were taught that. And the book can be destroyed but not his word wich he had put in it for it it will allways be with him like Jesus will always be with him. And what idolatry i dont whorship the bible i whorship the one who gave it to man. God. And God is not stupid to put trust in people who would falsafy it just like you would not put your faith in a white-collar crook to write your checks if you ran a buissness.This message has been edited by Swift, 12-09-2004 11:24 PM

I said the 12 had nothing to gain from lying about religon not religon itself. Cause back in there time they were hated and brutaly killed and therefore had no reson to lie cause i dont think anybody would want to die for something they lied about.

quote:

---

To my knowledge, there is no verse(s) in the other gospels that corroborates John's statement in John 9:22:

---

It doesn't have to be the gospels. Check history during the ministry of Jesus.

quote:

---

It is a reasonable statement though.

---

Yes it was reasonable once the Jews would not accept the "Christian" sect as part of Judaism, which was after the destruction of the temple and not during the ministry of Jesus.The question though is, was it a valid fear during the ministry of Jesus? I've shown evidence that it wasn't. Show me evidence that it was.Did Jesus reveal that he was the messiah to anyone aside from the 12 before his trial? The synoptics sound as though he didn't.

quote:

---

In Matthew 26:63-66 Jesus acknowledges that he is, in fact, the Messiah and he is accused of blasphemy by the high priest and summarily sentenced to death-

---

Stay within the timeline of the statement. Jesus didn't heal the blind man after his trial.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

Then read these and let God ansewrer them : Isaiah 2 (9:6) (7:14) John 8:58 plus Exodus 3:14 John 10:30 (and 14:7) Jesus was not a bull(the sacrafice is to the past to signifiy the coming of Jesus and his death as the lords supper is to when Jesus died in remembrance of him). He was God the Son wich is the same as God (read verses above) who paid seperation from God the Father so that we may not have seperation from him in Hell. seperation from God. God is sinless we arnt and would surley go to Hell if it werent for God the Son who paid the price. but yet it is demanded by his law. The problem was (like i said) that the Jews were using it as a license to sin and didnt offer themselves (or called there obedience in otherwords) to God cause they cared for nothing but there social life like some false cristians and even some cristians do. i never said he expects us to be God.Lucifer was cabable of sin so all other angels must be to. what did i fail to address and i will adress it . but i do not have time to address everything but will try. Acutually it transalates as day star. Whose missing the point now. He gave himself up. He knew that they where coming for him but didnt run. Well if Pres. Bush said noone could everagine buy use or sell guns and then you drive past the white house and saw him target practicing with a winchester rifle you wouldnt think he was to just and you proboblly would not vote for him agin. But the bible says God is truthful and just. You yourself have sad God wasnt cruel and wouldnt you say that someone who dosent keep there own commandments but makes others follow them or else cruel. Both are correct one goes back further than the other. The reson i sckiped it in the last is because i dont have the time.And I im sorry the propheciy didnt say he would be related to but the heir to the thron. But I in some way was right cause he would have to have been direct disendance of David to inherit the thron. fullfelment in Mt. 1:6 The curch didnt have tax exemption exept if it was thru Neros pets or some other gressly death. You didnt get the point. Nero was quit aware of what was going on, he was not mentaly ill like Caligula but he was perverse. Proof:He had sent an army HIMSELF to take the land between the Rhine river and another river (cant remember the name). But failed miserably and was aware of it cause he went into mourning. We have perv's today and they arnt all out of touch. His people didnt like the christians and he used that as an excuse to have his so called fun. Ans Paul by request went to see Nero not by the request of his underlings. He did this not to teach that everyone that they should give away stuff but that your possesions can get in the way of God since obviosly people spend more time with posesions than they do God. True? The ordeal with the rich man showed man loves possesions more than God. Well we know not everyone is going to heaven so were do you think they will go.
God isnt cruel cause he gave his son so that we might not go there.
Hell was meant for satan and his demons but people choose to follow satan and end up in the same place he will be in for eternity.This message has been edited by Swift, 12-10-2004 12:02 AMThis message has been edited by Swift, 12-10-2004 12:10 AM

Luke 4:16: Emphasis mine. Changed emphasized verse from red to a more readable color - The QueenThis message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 12-09-2004 09:32 PM

1. are people perfect
2. if no, then do you accept that we make mistakes?
3. even when it's important?
4. especially when it's important and there's lots of pressure?
5. bible=important
6. lots of mistakes.i'm not suggesting falsification (except maybe deuteronomy); but it's an edited compilation of many sacred documents. these documents are sacred because they give a hint to the character of god and how he relates to mankind, not because they are historically accurate or perfectly transcribed.

And then he quotes Now why do I not see Jesus saying that he is the Messiah in the quoted passage? I see Jesus saying that the accuser claims he claims he is the Messiah, and that the Son of Man will return, but not "Jesus acknowledges that he is, in fact, the Messiah". He is saying, essentially, 'I didn't say that' and 'The Son of Man will come' but I see no mention of a 'I am the Son of Man'. Are you reading a different translation than the KJV that you quoted?Chris Manteuffel

regards isaiah's son. the son himself is not the messiah, but the harbinger of one, and this would have occured during the lifetime of ahaz.jesus's name was joshua, not immanuel.like i said, quoting verse will not work on me. i've usually read them already, and understand them. heresy. notice they tried to stone him for that? i think you missed the joke on that one.

quote:

---

Genesis 2:24: Hence a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, so that they become one flesh.

---

are husband and wife on person?please don't quote random out of context verses at me, especially not from the text we're questioning the validity of. these are such standard christian quotes too. i'm nto stupid, and i have read them before. you failed to address my point. what meaning is a sacrifice we bear no part in? what are we giving up? what are we paying? atonement involves paying for something, my sins cannot be atoned by another.this is the very reason that guilt complexes are so common in fundamentalist christians. nothing is really done about thier own guilt, because they didn't have to pay any price for it. i think the primary purpose of sacrifices is not to appease and angry god, but to appease our own consciences. job spends just under 40 chapters taunting god into showing up. i would argue that we are separate from god. but i wouldn't call it spiritual death. well, then it didn't work, did it? i think the passage is suggesting something else: the evolution of the judaic faith away from sacrifices. notice they don't sacrifice animals anymore, even though they don't believe in jesus? qed, they have nothing to do with each other. no, but you were saying he is holding us to a godly standard of perfect. check your reference, lucifer was not an angel. or a demon. or the devil. your thinking paradise lost, not the bible. which genealogy is right, and which is wrong? what are you smoking? i want some. lucifer, in latin, means "bringer of light." similarly, noctifer means "bringer of darkness/night." why do i bring them up together? because they're both the planet venus. half the year it rises just before dawn, the other half, just before sunset. so for 6 months, it heralds the rising sun. we have a phrase for "noctifer" in english: "the evening star." similarly, "lucifer" we say as "the morning star."in hebrew, this word is heylel. in isaiah, he calls the king of babylon heylel, ben-shachar: shining son of the dawn. heylel comes from the word meaning to shine, and thus "bringer of light" and is PROBABLY also refering to the morning star, because that's certainly the way it appears in the latin vulgate (where we get the term from).it's also the title for the king of babylon. and some say orchestrated his own martyrdom. what do you mean "again?" bush is not god (thank god). we do not elect god, or change gods. i believe in god because i think he's real, not because i think he's nice. and yet the bible also depicts god as untruthful and unjust in places. curious. did i say god wasn't cruel? i said god doesn't hold us to a standard out of our own grasp. god is mightier than his laws, he is not bound by them. the original question was "what is the name of jesus's grandfather on his father's side?" the two verses say two different things. they CANNOT both be right, because joseph did not have two fathers. where does jesus sit on the throne in jerusalem? is there a difference?and actually, he did:

quote:

---

Mat 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go [and] sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come [and] follow me.

---

good question! i'm not entirely sure i believe in heaven either, but i'm still working on that one. but jacob is? if god didn't want me to go hell, wouldn't he just say that i'm not going to hell? why did someone have to die for that?and if it's the death that saved people, how did jesus forgive sins and grant salvation BEFORE his death?

quote:

---

Luk 7:48 And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven.
Luk 7:50 And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.

---

you're not entirely wrong, but not exactly right either.there was indeed a camp of aramean jews who believed in the power of words. all jews to some regard to (the reason the name of god is not spoken) but these guys took it far beyond. they're aramaic name for god was "memra" which meant "to speak" or, if you will, "the word."however, this is ONE aramaic targum, and should be considered apocryphal. not biblical.

quote:

---

Luke 24
And he said, Verily I say unto you, No prophet is accepted in his own country.

---

He refered to himself as a prophet and backed up this statement with comparisons to Elijah and Elisha, who were prophets apparently not accepted in their own country.Not really a clear proclamation of Messiahship.But if you feel that the verses you shared show that Jesus publicly claimed to be the messiah, what evidence do you have that regular people were thrown out of the synagogues during his ministry for claiming Jesus was the messiah?

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

True enough. Yet without the Bible, how can anyone know God apart from relativistic thinking which in effect puts God inside human definition? In other words, my God could be your Satan, or visa versa. No standard=no agreed upon definition. Individual truth=reality, vs absolute standard=reality.========================================
Here is an example of what I consider a "good" preacher and how he describes Johns words of God affecting man: This message has been edited by Phatboy, 12-10-2004 03:12 PM

Salmon.Looks good!Thank you.