Summations Only

UThis really isn't the point.The real life situation is that children are taught that John wrote this and that. They are led to believe that John was actually there. I suspect that if you asked, 8 out of 10 Christians would tell you that John was an apostle. Neither children nor adults are taught that the authors of the bible weren't the people who are named. If fact we know that John didn't write these things and we don't actually know who did. Or even when he or they did. It's an odd kind of dishonesty.The stories may well be believed by the ignorant but without provenance why should they be? If Rembradt didn't actually paint the picture would you still buy it?

I am suggesting what is written misses the point. The text is separate from the issue. I realize what is written should be judged on it's own merit. I accept that now. It changes nothing whether it's believable or not, no matter the exact writer.
But the point is it's still deceit.Edited by Golffly, : Screwed up

I submit that it is you who is missing the point. There is no deceit presented by the Gospel. Instead there are just some idiot priest/pastors who believe and convinced you that John wrote the Gospel. Those guys set you up to fail in exactly the same as do people who promote Creation Science.And even those guys probably were not being deceitful. They were just wrong. I admit that I haven't read through John with this issue in mind, but I don't see a lot of first person exposition in the text. I do see some use of what might be the royal "we" or "us" but that might well be chalked up to poetic license. So where exactly do you find a claim by the author to be John.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Right. And for the purpose of this discussion we are assuming that John did not write the Gospel.The point I'm making is that such teaching of children does not reflect deceit on the part of the author, and that's one of the issues under discussion. And if the people doing the teaching believe what they are passing on to children, there is no deceit on their part, which I think addresses the issue that you are pointing to. That's certainly hyperbole. Some are taught that and some are not. If, however, the issue here is deceit, deceit requires a mindset can only occur among those who know better and still teach or allow the teaching of wrong information. If you cannot point to someone doing that, then you are missing the point.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

John 21:24King James Version (KJV)24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.Those that still believe disciple John wrote the book and was an eye witness, site this passage.
Sometime in 1800's some scholars questioned authorship. But I would suspect most Christians, by a long shot, still believe apostle John is the writer.

But you didn't finish the verse. Here is the whole verse.

quote:

---

24 This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that HIS testimony is true.

---

The writer isn't claiming to be John. His claim is that he has taken what John had written earlier and formed one cohesive account of what John had testified to.

What do you think of the reasoning of those citers? Because to me the passage clearly says, "We're citing John while writing about John in the third person". The author(s) cite John and even quote him, but clearly, according to verse 24, the authors (we) are not John.I understand that people make a similar argument about Moses authoring the Torah.

quote:

---

Exodus 17:14 And the Lord said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven.

---

Well God commanded Moses to write a book, and presumably Moses did that. But did he write the Torah which contains a description of Moses death? Maybe not.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

It may or it may not - as has been said, we can't know their motives. I'm not sure about that. If you take the view that before you instruct people on something as important as the salvation of their eternal soul, they should be in full control of the facts, then those that do it out of ignorance could reasonably called culpable. I understand the point. My point is rather different - the fact that the bible wasn't written by those named as the authors isn't generally known is interesting in itself. (If true, which I suspect it is). It's a small conspiracy - best not mention it, it might get laity thinking.

GDR,
Take a look at the passage I quoted John 21:24.
You suggest I didn't quote the entire verse, so you then quote it in it's " entirety".
Well, you must have been excited because Santa is coming and missed the fact they are "essentially" identical. ))) Anyway, I'm excited too so no big deal.I don't know if I'd call it claiming to be John either. Maybe, maybe not. I think, for me, it seems to be the book is often a sort of eye witness account. So the reader gets the impression the writer was right there...and has a fantastic memory not to be rivalled. ))
The point which seems to be dwindling over time. ( I no longer believe it matters to text at all). Is that by some means, for the better part of 2000 years, Christians believe apostle John wrote the book John. It has been reinforced through out history and wasn't until some time into 1800's, some scholars questioned the validity. It's so accepted, that today the vast majority of Christians still believe it. Every Christian I know does.So now it seems we debate whether the actual writer himself was being deceptive. Or whether the " Christian organization" itself attempted a hood wink. Or whether they even knew they were hood winking. Because, effectively, the hood wink isn't significant to the book anyway.
At some point, I start to forget exactly what I am or was saying. I think I stick with Gospel John, not written by John, is deceptive. The questions brought up here seem endless and if I started out as certain about many things, I sit now less certain of many things. I still think it " smells" bad though.

So we return to the question of education.Lots of people still believe in astrology.Lots of people still believe in a Young Earth, Special Creation, Creationism and that lite beer is not of the devil.Are all but the last of those simply a matter of education as opposed to deceit?

Well it's education through science. I consider the bible an attempt by very, very superstitious people to explain what they couldn't understand. It wasn't malicious. The guys didn't, couldn't know. They tried to explain it as best they could. Astrology, casting lots, fortune telling, necromancy, evil spirits etc. all superstition. They were just unknowing and superstitious.
The fact people still believe the literal bible today, that part is being deceived by, what do you call it " Club Christian". That and/or purposeful ignorance based on complete delusion driven in to people, born to the correct parents, in the correct geographic region.

Not correct.With respect to authors of John, there is no question of motive because there is no claim that John is the author, and in fact the text says exactly the opposite. So far nobody has even been able to cite a claim from the authors to be John authored. When John is referred to in the text, he is described in third person in exactly the same way as the other disciples. What does it mean to be "in control of the facts"? That they must not be in error? I Culpable yes. But not deceitful. John is not named as the author of the Gospel according to John and as has been pointed out the text itself says differently. A conspiracy implies deceit and there is no such thing in evidence.Controversy about the authorship of John is widely known. But we might well say the same thing about controversy about the Noahic flood. Some Christians accept that John is not the author and consider the matter of no consequence, but for others it is vital to their faith and so they reject the controversy and belief the silly arguments supporting their belief just as they insist that there was a global flood a few thousand years ago.Neither case is evidence of a conspiracy. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Not Club Christian, remember I am a member of Club Christian and also the product of a Club Christian education; there is a difference between Club Christian and the Christian Cult of Ignorance.One teaches that you should not question, not challenge, believe the Source over the Content, the other teaches that you should always question, always challenge, evaluate the Content over the Source. One teaches "If you do not stand for something you will fall for anything" while the other says "Always be ready to change what you stand for when provided with sufficient evidence that change is warranted".I heard a great interview with the current Dalai Lama where he was asked "What should you do if it were proven that there is no rebirth, no god, no karma?" His response was "Well we would have to start explaining that we were wrong."The literalistic approach to the Bible; that it is the inerrant word of God, can only be sustained through willful ignorance. You need to deny or explain away all the contradiction and outright falsehoods found in the stories, purposefully deny all the physical evidence of what was actually written as well as reality and them try to enforce that ignorance upon kids. You need to isolate them, keep them from being exposed to truth or reality, create avoidance schools and lessons, avoidance college and even avoidance accreditation organizations and peer review groups. You even encourage the use of browsers designed to filter all those dangerous truths and reality so it is not ever seen.But that is not the only possible approach. Club Christian is broad and there are chapters that don't try to avoid questioning, struggling, reality.

I'm not particularly interested in the detail of who is said to have written what and when, nor whether it was originally deceitful or not to pretend to be one of the fab four. I'm just wondering aloud how how many Christians actually know that the new testament was not written by M, M, L & J and why that knowledge is not universally known. No, just that if it's known that M,M, L & J didn't write the bibles, it shouldn't be taught that they did. We wouldn't do that with any other subject matter. I'm not at all sure that's true. I suspect most Christians are blissfully unaware of it - why would they know? Sure, just speculating. However, I shared a flat at uni with a girl who was studying theology, she was astounded to be told that none of the lecturers believed in the virgin birth but were quite happy to preach it from their pulpits. They had one set of beliefs for themselves based on the historicity of the bible and another that they thought the laity could cope with. It sounded like a conspiracy to me. The kind of stuff that parents do with young children - except the church does it with adults.

Your statement of non interest is inconsistent with your claims that there is a conspiracy on the part of the author or that we cannot know whether there is a conspiracy. What should I take from you being uninterested in facts that address your statement? I'm not familiar with the evidence of authorship regarding Mathew, Mark, or Luke. Luke in particular is not claimed to be an eye witness or a disciple anyway. He is essentially a well educated nobody relating what he heard and read.Regarding John, the issue of authorship is controversial, but I myself am convinced that John was not written by any of the disciples. The text implies that the author consulted writings by John.So when we say, "knowledge", what were referring to is a controversy in which many, if not most Christians believe that John wrote the Gospel according to John and in which most academics disagree. It's not "known" that John did not write the Gospel according to John. They might know because the controversy is not secret. So some know and some don't know. Anyone can find the controversy discussed all over the internet and its easy to find official church positions that include their rationale for reaching their conclusion, which is generally that John is the author. Anyone who wants to do so can reach their own conclusions. I agree that what your flat mate describes is a conspiracy. However I sincerely doubt that what she describes is a universal or even a common practice. My dad taught at a theological seminary and I never had any question regarding the sincerity of belief.Of course my experience is merely anecdotal. As is yours.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.