Implications of Heresy

[achilles12604]

I have finally found a title which I think describes my religious views. I have created a usergroup to match. I accept many of the tenants of Christianity. I accept many of the core values and teachings. In fact let me just list them out.

I accept God exists.
I accept Jesus was his son and unique among men.
I accept that Jesus death atoned for sin.
I accept that Jesus performed miracles.
I accept that God inspired many of the writers of the bible.

Now begins my Heresy.

I accept that God inspired other great men of different faiths like Gandhi

I accept that salvation is a matter of the heart and faith is a byproduct or a symptom of the condition of this heart.

I accept that much of the bible can not be read literally

I accept that some of the stories of the bible are nothing more than stories, nor were they ever meant to be more than this.

I accept that people of other faiths have the potential for salvation just as any Christian would

I accept that the church has fallen far from where it originated.

I accept that the writings of Paul and the other disciples, while lead by God, are still personal interpretations and therefore subject to personal bias.

I do not accept the church taught concept of original sin.

I do not accept the sinlessness of Mary

I do not accept the concept of sainthoods

I do not accept that hell is a place for eternal torture in some fire lake

I accept (basically) some form of evolution/ID

I do not accept a young earth creation model.

I accept much of the current church as hypocritical and lazy

I accept that God reaches out to all men where ever they are through whatever beliefs they hold.

I accept that God knows just about everything, but can not know individual futures nor do I think this idea is supported well by scripture.









Now, I leave this WIDE open. I certainly will not take offense to anything written here. I want brutally honest opinions.

Who does not believe that my current beliefs allow for my own salvation (I am hell bound)?

Who believes that any of my current beliefs contradict another of my current beliefs?

Who here would not consider me a "true Christian"?

Which of my beliefs are directly contradicted by scripture?

What would Jesus say of my beliefs? What would you imagine him telling me?





Honesty people. Brutal, ugly, in my face, even to the point of suspending rule #1 for a moment, HONESTY

[Goose]

I just found your crteria for authority.

Here, let me make it simple. I will spell out the main reasons I accept or reject a book. You tell me if it is credible and why.

1) The book needs to be written by either an eyewitness, or someone recording an eyewitness

2) The book should contain information which can be cross referenced with extra biblical sources of some kind.

3) The book should not contradict other books if both are to be accepted.

4) The book should present similar pictures of events as other books if they are both to be accepted.

5) If the books contain extra information about something, this additional information should present a similar picture as the other books if both are to accepted.


Are these guidelines decent? Why or why not?

Since this is your thread we can go with your criteria. A cuple of clarifications though on the criteria.

Regarding point:
1) We're good

2) Not sure what you mean by extra biblical. Must it be secular, is that what you mean? Or just not in the Bible. Should it be from the first century or can it be later?

3) What do you mean by contradiction? For example, the Salt and Light metaphor might be seen as a contradiction as Matthew elaborates where Luke does not. Matthew is giving additional information and interpretation that Luke doesn't. Is this what you mean by contradiction? I would say a contradiction is where one author says "A" and another says "Not-A" in the same context, time and sense. Is that agreeable?

4) We're good. I would however say "picture" is a little hard to evaluate. We should also expect a somewhat different "picture" from different authors. Similar "message" would be better.

5) Which book becomes the baseline or standard though? The earliest one? The shortest?


For the sake of time let's not worry about Matthew, Luke, and Mark. As we all accept them. Let's tackle the following books:

Paul's letters
John
Acts

[achilles12604]

That could be. However, that would be another topic - canonicity. It's irrelevant to our discussions here. We are looking at heresies. And specifically core doctrinal ones.

I'm not sure it is unrelated. Saltagent was the first to use canonicity as a defense of the books in the bible. You also cite canonicity at the end of this post with your criteria which was actually the criteria used by the Council of Nicea. If the books which are included teach certain things then disregarding those things could be construed as heresy.

I don't have to. You have already done a lot of it for me. The high christology found in John and Hebrews is not found in Matthew, Mark or Luke...

There IS a Christology found in Matthew, Mark and Luke. It's not "higher" in John. John is merely more explicit and focused as his book is more theological in nature.

I am afraid that if you hold this opinion, you are in the minority. Allow me to cite a few places which have observed a difference in the Christology between these books.

I said John is more EXPLICIT in Christology. You are the one that feels the Christology is DIFFERENT. You should cite the best example and we can look at it. One example of Christology found in Matthew and Luke is they both affirm immaculate conception of Jesus. Don't you think that is evidence of Christology?

The Case for Christ, Lee Stroble
Evidence That Demands a Verdict, Josh McDowell
One
Two

Your sources don't prove a different Christology only a more explicit emphasis in John - something I've been saying all along in this thread.

I can accept that they both contain Christology. However, the implication is that those books with extremely high Christology could have altered, invented or otherwise distorted events to make Jesus into more of what THEY wanted him to be. There are massive differences with the image of Jesus between John and Mark or Matthew. Yes they both have Christology. But John contains such a higher rate that it calls into question the honesty and accuracy of his account. After all, he did write with the intention of convincing people to believe what he wanted. This is slightly more suspect then the low Christology of Luke who simply wanted an accurate and orderly account of events.

You Beg the Question. You have assumed that Jesus was not divine and as a result any first century writing that could have apostolic authorship is questionnable if it has a "higher" Christology. You've already assumed Jesus was not divine this is why those books give you grief.

You sort of have a point if I disregard these books solely on the higher christology. However, since I have multiple reasons for disregarding the books I have, then christology becomes only one of many multiple reasons. It adds to the evidence which supports my conclusion.

Tell me, you don't find it strange at all that the last gospel accepted by the standards of the council just happens to represent Jesus in a much more "god-like" light than the other 3? It is not strange that this is the only book which contains the "i am" quotes by Jesus?

This doesn't strike you as someone exaggerating and elaborating in an attempt to convince you that his opinion is correct? If I am trying to sell something, I will not only play up its good points but I will also exaggerate and try my best to make it seem like the abosolute best thing, must have item in the world.

Since, the author of John freely admits that he is trying to convince his readers of something he believes, shouldn't the differences between this and other more documentary style books be examined with suspicion?

Christology is significant because the higher the Christology, the more suspect the motive for writing and therefore the writings themselves.

That would be true for one that questioned Christ's divinity a priori. All writings have a motive. We should then dismiss the synoptic Gospels based on this criterion. They clearly have a motive - they are a proclamation.

Are you saying that John and Luke have the same motivation?

I hope not because we even have it in writing that their motivations are different.

John 20:31 But these are written that you may[a] believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Luke 1:1

Introduction
1Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

John writes so that his listeners may hear and believe as he does. Luke writes to provide an orderly and correct account so that his reader may have the best and most correct information.

Actually, your case for a late dating of John will primarily depend upon subjective criteria such as the perception of a more developed theology and such. You have no concrete anchor in which to attach John to a very late date.

Since we seem to be dismissing Hebrews, shall we now turn to John?

First. Let's settle on a criteria for authority. Do you have a problem with mine? Here it is again.

To be considered authoritative the work must:

1. Have apostolic and first century authorship. (at least to a reasonable degree of certainty). We'll use the same methodology for establishing authorship and dating as classical scholars use for establishing the authorship and dating of secular works. If it's linked to a first century apostle or disciple it's good-to-go.

2. Have a consistent core message with the majority of other first century works in regards to faith and practice.

3. Have no obvious factual errors.

4. Have a sober and factual demeanor with out obviously bizarre, unnecessary and absurd embellishments to the supernatural.

I am just fine with this criteria, but I would like to add that if at all possible its events should be consistent with outside sources as well. We can count this as bonus points if you wish.

[Salt Agent]

You sort of have a point if I disregard these books solely on the higher christology. However, since I have multiple reasons for disregarding the books I have, then christology becomes only one of many multiple reasons. It adds to the evidence which supports my conclusion.

Tell me, you don't find it strange at all that the last gospel accepted by the standards of the council just happens to represent Jesus in a much more "god-like" light than the other 3? It is not strange that this is the only book which contains the "i am" quotes by Jesus?

Not strange at all. It would only be "remarkable", "interesting" or "incredible" if John were the only book that clearly teaches the deity of Christ, as Goose said. Other books and writers clearly affirm the deity of Christ, and contain high Christology.
Mark records an account in which Christ equates himself with the Holy Spirit, and thus also proclaims his deity.
In the parrallel passage of Luke, Christ knows what the Pharisees are thinking- something the Bible only attributes to God.

Mark 3:22-30
22 And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem said, “He has Beelzebub,” and, “By the ruler of the demons He casts out demons.”23 So He called them to Himself and said to them in parables: “How can Satan cast out Satan?...
28 “Assuredly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they may utter;29 “but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation”—30 because they said, “He has an unclean spirit.”
The Holy Bible, New King James Version, (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, Inc.) 1982.

This doesn't strike you as someone exaggerating and elaborating in an attempt to convince you that his opinion is correct? If I am trying to sell something, I will not only play up its good points but I will also exaggerate and try my best to make it seem like the abosolute best thing, must have item in the world.

Since, the author of John freely admits that he is trying to convince his readers of something he believes, shouldn't the differences between this and other more documentary style books be examined with suspicion?

No, because first of all, you are projecting what you would do, exaggerating and therefore presupposing/assuming that John would do/did the same thing.
I will not only play up its good points but I will also exaggerate and try my best to make it seem like the abosolute best thing, must have item in the world.


In both John and Luke you mistook their means, method, for their end goal- John and Luke.

John's ultimate goal is not to convince them at the expense of embellishing or exaggerating the Gospel, but "that by believing you may have life in his name." - ultimately, that they gain Salvation, eternal life.

Luke has a different method, but again, you mistook his method, or say an objective to reach the end goal. "4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught." .

His end goal, is not simply to give an orderly account, but that they may be certain of those things they have been taught.

Christology is significant because the higher the Christology, the more suspect the motive for writing and therefore the writings themselves.
That would be true for one that questioned Christ's divinity a priori. All writings have a motive. We should then dismiss the synoptic Gospels based on this criterion. They clearly have a motive - they are a proclamation.


I hope not because we even have it in writing that their motivations are different.

Quote:
John 20:31 But these are written that you may[a] believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
Quote:
Luke 1:1

Introduction
1Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.


John writes so that his listeners may hear and believe as he does. Luke writes to provide an orderly and correct account so that his reader may have the best and most correct information.

No, those are means, or different methods. John's ultimate goal is so that they may believe the Gospel and have eternal life.
Lukes ultimate goal is so that they may have confidence in the Gospel message they heard. Confirming evidence which supports John's message.

Even if their ultimate goals were different, their message of Christ as the savior of the world and His resurrection is the same. All four Gospels confirm/record the resurrection, and appearances after His resurrection. Furthermore, there is nothing in John that directly contradicts the witness or message of the other Gospel writers. It is the resurrection of Christ from the dead that proves His deity. The whole Christian message hinges on that. If not for the resurrection, Christ would have been a liar -because he predicted his resurrection, and thus Christianity would be a fraud.

You cite 1.) the questionable authorship of John, 2.) late date of writing, and 3.) exceptionally high Christology, which you suspect because you already don't accept Christ as God, nor do you acknowledge that He claimed to be.

Still doesn't change the fact that it doesn't matter what John's last name is. So he wasn't/ may not have been John the Beloved, or one of the 12, but he could have been John the netmaker, or John the friend of John the beloved. There were two Judas's recorded in the Gospel, and in numerous places, is says,...."Judas, not Iscariot." He knew Christ and he knew his disciples by name. Doesn't discount his witness. Just because there are three Chris's in the same office and one Chris report mentions some unique things, doesn't mean his report is not valid or any way less credible than the other 2 Chris's.

You haven't cited any internal content or doctrine of John or Hebrews that contradicts any other clear doctrinal teaching.
Writer was first century and was clearly connected to, and knew the apostles by name, and witness some of the very same events. The most crucial things- claims of Christ, death and resurrection, occur in all four gospels.
Book was accepted by Body of Christ at large.

The most highly Christological - Christ centered book of the entire Bible is Colossians. The theme of this book is the Preeminence and Supremacy of Christ in Creation and Redemption.
"The high Christology of Colossians has been compared to John's later concept that Christ is the 'Logos' ". Author of Colossians, New Open Bible

As to Hebrews, there were some hints and clues that very strongly indicate that Paul did not write Hebrews, [lack of greeting, very high polished Greek style, exclusively quotes from Septuagint, etc,] so much so that most Bible scholars agree on this. We do know however that the readers/ recipients 1) had come to faith through the testimony of eyewitnesses of Christ, 2). had endured hardship because of their stand for the gospel, and 3) the author was known by them personally, and so was connected to eyewitnesses and the date is clearly in the first century. -- Timothy was still alive, 13:23, it was quoted by Clement in AD 95, and persecution was mounting, and the old Jewish system was about to be removed. All this suggests a date between AD 60-68.

The author is unknown to us, and was perhaps unknown even by the second century, but the point being that it was known which makes a huge difference compared to a book that was just found somewhere and added two hundred years laters. It was included in Jerome's translation of the NT into Latin, -- the Vulgate, along with John and all the other books of the NT.

It still seems that your methodology is suspicion because you don't accept the deity of Christ, and suspicion because you would exaggerate details to convince people to buy your product, ie John must have embellished the story.

Grace and Peace,

respectfully,
Salt Agent.

[achilles12604]

You sort of have a point if I disregard these books solely on the higher christology. However, since I have multiple reasons for disregarding the books I have, then christology becomes only one of many multiple reasons. It adds to the evidence which supports my conclusion.

Tell me, you don't find it strange at all that the last gospel accepted by the standards of the council just happens to represent Jesus in a much more "god-like" light than the other 3? It is not strange that this is the only book which contains the "i am" quotes by Jesus?

Not strange at all. It would only be "remarkable", "interesting" or "incredible" if John were the only book that clearly teaches the deity of Christ, as Goose said. Other books and writers clearly affirm the deity of Christ, and contain high Christology.
Mark records an account in which Christ equates himself with the Holy Spirit, and thus also proclaims his deity.
In the parallel passage of Luke, Christ knows what the Pharisees are thinking- something the Bible only attributes to God.

Mark 3:22-30
22 And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem said, “He has Beelzebub,” and, “By the ruler of the demons He casts out demons.”23 So He called them to Himself and said to them in parables: “How can Satan cast out Satan?...
28 “Assuredly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they may utter;29 “but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation”—30 because they said, “He has an unclean spirit.”
The Holy Bible, New King James Version, (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, Inc.) 1982.

I do not see Jesus equating himself with the holy spirit. He is saying that sinning against the holy spirit is unforgivable. He MIGHT have been implying that he HAD the holy spirit, but this is not even close to claiming that he WAS the holy spirit.

Now if you are saying that having the holy spirit dwell within you is the equivalent to claiming deity, then I will stand aside and allow the vast majority of Christianity throw stones because they all state that they have the holy spirit. They asked him into their heart and he lives within them.

No, having the holy spirit and BEING the holy spirit are two very different ideas. Jesus never equates himself with the holy spirit here.

But just to hammer in a final nail about this, look at the relationship between Jesus, the father and the holy spirit.

Jesus is filled with the holy spirit. Does this mean he was filled with himself? (Luke 10:21)

Jesus is led by the holy spirit. Did Jesus lead himself? (Luke 4:1)

Jesus makes it clear that sinning against HIM was ok, but not against the spirit.

8"I tell you, whoever acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man will also acknowledge him before the angels of God. 9But he who disowns me before men will be disowned before the angels of God. 10And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.

Jesus says similar things regarding the father. There is no way that Jesus equates himself with the holy spirit, or God the father. He says he HAS the holy spirit, but then again so do most christians today. So, how is this a claim to divinity?

This doesn't strike you as someone exaggerating and elaborating in an attempt to convince you that his opinion is correct? If I am trying to sell something, I will not only play up its good points but I will also exaggerate and try my best to make it seem like the abosolute best thing, must have item in the world.

Since, the author of John freely admits that he is trying to convince his readers of something he believes, shouldn't the differences between this and other more documentary style books be examined with suspicion?

No, because first of all, you are projecting what you would do, exaggerating and therefore presupposing/assuming that John would do/did the same thing.
I will not only play up its good points but I will also exaggerate and try my best to make it seem like the absolute best thing, must have item in the world.

I'm not trying to project. Simply understand. If I have someone working for a company telling me that they are selling the absolute best shoe in the world, and then the proceed to tell me all about it, I am going to be skeptical. If I have someone who is not working for a company but rather is conducting research about many various shoe types and he mentions some facts about a particular shoe, I will probably just take him at his word. John vs Luke.

His end goal, is not simply to give an orderly account, but that they may be certain of those things they have been taught.

The difference, although I doubt I really need to point this out, is that John recites his tale with the intent of the person hearing it believing in Jesus as lord and savior. Luke recites his tale with the intention of making clear all the facts.

The difference is with the intent of the authors. And John makes it clear that his intentions go beyond providing trustable facts. He wants them to believe. Luke makes no such claim.

Perhaps you would explain to me the difference between telling facts so that the person recieves an orderly account and telling facts so that they may be certain of the events which occurred. Then I will tell you how this is different from telling with the intention of convincing others of a point. One tells with the purpose of conversion. The other with the purpose of informing.

Even if their ultimate goals were different, their message of Christ as the savior of the world and His resurrection is the same. All four Gospels confirm/record the resurrection, and appearances after His resurrection.

While this isn't quite true, I will let it slide because you make another point which I strongly disagree with.

Furthermore, there is nothing in John that directly contradicts the witness or message of the other Gospel writers. It is the resurrection of Christ from the dead that proves His deity. The whole Christian message hinges on that. If not for the resurrection, Christ would have been a liar -because he predicted his resurrection, and thus Christianity would be a fraud.

I think John does contradict the other Gospels.

Lets start another thought experiment and see where it leads.

I do not think that Christ's resurrection from the dead proves his deity. Lazarus was raised from the dead. The dead little girl was raised. Heck, I think even Peter raises someone from the dead in Acts. None of those people were God.

God will raise the entire race of humanity according to some Christians. But they are not all God. Jesus resurrection does NOT prove that he was a deity.

The rest of your post deals with the other thought experiment. So let's go there next.

[achilles12604]

Thought experiment.

I say that there are significant differences between John and the other 3 Gospels. Let's look at them and see what there is to see.

Let me preface this by saying that I don't doubt all of John to be accurate. However, because of the problems we can discuss below, I do not hold it as authoritative, but rather as informative. In other words, I look to it for events, filler, etc. But not as a source for founding beliefs. Now, if my objections fall flat, I would be happy to assign it the same authority as the other 3 Gospels.


First, the concept that Jesus claimed divinity himself. It has been pointed out that John contains plenty of "I am" phrases which directly point to Jesus claiming divinity. Let's first examine this claim in light of the other 3 Gospels. Where in the other 3 Gospels do we see Jesus directly claim divinity?

[Goose]

That could be. However, that would be another topic - canonicity. It's irrelevant to our discussions here. We are looking at heresies. And specifically core doctrinal ones.

I'm not sure it is unrelated. Saltagent was the first to use canonicity as a defense of the books in the bible. You also cite canonicity at the end of this post with your criteria which was actually the criteria used by the Council of Nicea. If the books which are included teach certain things then disregarding those things could be construed as heresy.

Where did I cite canonicity? The criteria I came up with was my own and put together before I ever read Salt Agent's post. Scout's honour. If it resembles the criteria used by the Council of Nicea it's is coincidental. I still think canonicity is a red herring. You want to show that Hebrews doesn't pass the criteria and therefore all books are equally up for question. As though the Council just randomly picked books that they liked therefore giving you permission to do the same.

I don't have to. You have already done a lot of it for me. The high christology found in John and Hebrews is not found in Matthew, Mark or Luke...

There IS a Christology found in Matthew, Mark and Luke. It's not "higher" in John. John is merely more explicit and focused as his book is more theological in nature.

I am afraid that if you hold this opinion, you are in the minority. Allow me to cite a few places which have observed a difference in the Christology between these books.

I said John is more EXPLICIT in Christology. You are the one that feels the Christology is DIFFERENT. You should cite the best example and we can look at it. One example of Christology found in Matthew and Luke is they both affirm immaculate conception of Jesus. Don't you think that is evidence of Christology?

The Case for Christ, Lee Stroble
Evidence That Demands a Verdict, Josh McDowell
One
Two

Your sources don't prove a different Christology only a more explicit emphasis in John - something I've been saying all along in this thread.

I can accept that they both contain Christology. However, the implication is that those books with extremely high Christology could have altered, invented or otherwise distorted events to make Jesus into more of what THEY wanted him to be. There are massive differences with the image of Jesus between John and Mark or Matthew. Yes they both have Christology. But John contains such a higher rate that it calls into question the honesty and accuracy of his account. After all, he did write with the intention of convincing people to believe what he wanted. This is slightly more suspect then the low Christology of Luke who simply wanted an accurate and orderly account of events.

You Beg the Question. You have assumed that Jesus was not divine and as a result any first century writing that could have apostolic authorship is questionable if it has a "higher" Christology. You've already assumed Jesus was not divine this is why those books give you grief.

You sort of have a point if I disregard these books solely on the higher christology. However, since I have multiple reasons for disregarding the books I have, then christology becomes only one of many multiple reasons. It adds to the evidence which supports my conclusion.

The reasons though when applied euqally to other books should cause you to reject the synoptic Gospels, books you do accept, as well. However, you've already conceded that a Christology is present in the synoptic Gospels yet you accept them as authoritative. But then saying you reject John as authoritative because it contains a "higher" (or more explicit) Christology is odd. It's as though you are dismissing John based upon style rather than content. It's based more upon your opinion of John and presuppositions.

Tell me, you don't find it strange at all that the last gospel accepted by the standards of the council just happens to represent Jesus in a much more "god-like" light than the other 3?...

I've already given you some scripture from Mark in previous posts that presents a portrait of divinity. I haven't even touched Matthew, Luke or Paul yet.

You've got a real bee in your bonnet over the Council's selection of books. Let it go. We can construct our own methodology for our purposes here.

...It is not strange that this is the only book which contains the "i am" quotes by Jesus?

Nope. John isn't the only book that has Jesus affirming His self concept of divinity. Matthew, Mark and Luke do too.

This doesn't strike you as someone exaggerating and elaborating in an attempt to convince you that his opinion is correct?...

Nope. Because we find a Christology in the Synoptic Gospels as well as Paul's writings which ALL predate John. It's only a problem for those that have a problem swallowing Jesus' divinity.

...If I am trying to sell something, I will not only play up its good points but I will also exaggerate and try my best to make it seem like the abosolute best thing, must have item in the world.

You have implied many times now that John has exaggerated and distorted. It's time you produced some evidence. Give us your BEST example of where John exaggerates. You see achilles, the problem you must over come is that the synoptic Gospels and Paul display a Christology. And a "high" one at that. Luke and Matthew speak of an immaculate conception. That's about as "high" a Christology as it gets. Paul calls Christ God. If they didn't have any Christology what-so-ever and then John comes along with his the word became flesh stuff you'd have a case, but you don't.

Since, the author of John freely admits that he is trying to convince his readers of something he believes, shouldn't the differences between this and other more documentary style books be examined with suspicion?

You are free to examine with as much suspicion as you feel necessary. What you are not free to do is dismiss a book because you don't like the style of the author or you don't agree with him.

Christology is significant because the higher the Christology, the more suspect the motive for writing and therefore the writings themselves.

That would be true for one that questioned Christ's divinity a priori. All writings have a motive. We should then dismiss the synoptic Gospels based on this criterion. They clearly have a motive - they are a proclamation.

Are you saying that John and Luke have the same motivation?

I hope not because we even have it in writing that their motivations are different.

John 20:31 But these are written that you may[a] believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Luke 1:1

Introduction
1Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

John writes so that his listeners may hear and believe as he does. Luke writes to provide an orderly and correct account so that his reader may have the best and most correct information.

What a minute. Are you trying to tell me Luke is NOT trying to convince "the most excellent Theophilus" that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God, and that Theo should believe all that was already taught to him? Really? You believe that? Then why did Luke write it???

The difference is with the intent of the authors. And John makes it clear that his intentions go beyond providing trustable facts...

He does? Where?

...[John] wants them to believe. Luke makes no such claim.

He doesn't need to, it's obvious.

Here is Mark's introduction:
Mark 1:1 This is the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Ummm, that sounds just like John, don't you think?

Actually, your case for a late dating of John will primarily depend upon subjective criteria such as the perception of a more developed theology and such. You have no concrete anchor in which to attach John to a very late date.

Since we seem to be dismissing Hebrews, shall we now turn to John?

First. Let's settle on a criteria for authority. Do you have a problem with mine? Here it is again.

To be considered authoritative the work must:

1. Have apostolic and first century authorship. (at least to a reasonable degree of certainty). We'll use the same methodology for establishing authorship and dating as classical scholars use for establishing the authorship and dating of secular works. If it's linked to a first century apostle or disciple it's good-to-go.

2. Have a consistent core message with the majority of other first century works in regards to faith and practice.

3. Have no obvious factual errors.

4. Have a sober and factual demeanor with out obviously bizarre, unnecessary and absurd embellishments to the supernatural.

I am just fine with this criteria, but I would like to add that if at all possible its events should be consistent with outside sources as well. We can count this as bonus points if you wish.

You said your criteria was the best, but OK, we can go with mine. Which book should we start with? John Paul or Acts? We'll use Matthew, Mark and Luke as the baseline as we already accept them. OK?

"Outside sources", meaning what? "Outside" what? Do you mean non-Biblical or secular or both? Confirming with secular sources will be slightly problematic for various reasons.

[Goose]

First, the concept that Jesus claimed divinity himself. It has been pointed out that John contains plenty of "I am" phrases which directly point to Jesus claiming divinity. Let's first examine this claim in light of the other 3 Gospels. Where in the other 3 Gospels do we see Jesus directly claim divinity?

I want it to go on record that you are now acknowledging that Jesus is directly making a claim to divinity in John with the "I am" quote.

I don't know of anywhere in the other three gospels where Jesus makes the claim "I AM God." But neither does John. We've already established John is simply more explicit.

However, the synoptic gospel writers do have Jesus affirming His self concept of divinity.

Mark 14:61-64 But He was silent and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked Him, saying to Him, Are you the Christ, the son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I AM! And you will see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power and coming in the clouds of the heaven. Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, What further need do we have of witnesses? You have heard the blasphemy; what do you think? And they all condemned Him to be guilty of death. (ISV)

cf. Luke 22:67-71 and Matthew 26:63-65

[Goose]

I do not think that Christ's resurrection from the dead proves his deity. Lazarus was raised from the dead. The dead little girl was raised. Heck, I think even Peter raises someone from the dead in Acts. None of those people were God.

And non of them made any special claims about their relationship to God that needed to be vindicated either.

Edit: Jesus' resurrection was also unique. Non of the people you've cited above had a resurrection combined with an ascension. They were more of a temporary resuscitation back to life. Were are not told expressly, but presumably they lived out their natural lives and then died again. Jesus lived on.

Additional edit: Jesus' resurrection was also unique in that He was the only person in the Bible to predict His own death and resurrection. And fulifill that prediction.

God will raise the entire race of humanity according to some Christians. But they are not all God. Jesus resurrection does NOT prove that he was a deity.

It proves that He was not a heretic. That Jesus' claims were verified by God.

[achilles12604]

First, the concept that Jesus claimed divinity himself. It has been pointed out that John contains plenty of "I am" phrases which directly point to Jesus claiming divinity. Let's first examine this claim in light of the other 3 Gospels. Where in the other 3 Gospels do we see Jesus directly claim divinity?

I want it to go on record that you are now acknowledging that Jesus is directly making a claim to divinity in John with the "I am" quote.

I don't know of anywhere in the other three gospels where Jesus makes the claim "I AM God." But neither does John. We've already established John is simply more explicit.

However, the synoptic gospel writers do have Jesus affirming His self concept of divinity.

Mark 14:61-64 But He was silent and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked Him, saying to Him, Are you the Christ, the son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I AM! And you will see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power and coming in the clouds of the heaven. Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, What further need do we have of witnesses? You have heard the blasphemy; what do you think? And they all condemned Him to be guilty of death. (ISV)

cf. Luke 22:67-71 and Matthew 26:63-65

I looked this particular evidence up on strongs to understand the orignal Hebrew. The I Am quoted in the original texts is not the same word used as "I AM" in exodus. It is however the same words as used by John the Baptist when quoting him.

Now, as for the sitting on the right hand of power and coming from heaven, I too think this will occur, perhaps even literally. But I still don't equate Jesus with God himself. He is claiming God's power and authority. But he isn't at all even implying that Jesus IS God.

From Daniel

13 "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

He approaches the main power and is given power and authority. Do you think that being given power and authority is the same as BEING that same power and authority?

[achilles12604]

I do not think that Christ's resurrection from the dead proves his deity. Lazarus was raised from the dead. The dead little girl was raised. Heck, I think even Peter raises someone from the dead in Acts. None of those people were God.

And non of them made any special claims about their relationship to God that needed to be vindicated either.

If the resurrection means nothing without also claiming something, then isn't it the CLAIM which decides divinity, not the resurrection?

Edit: Jesus' resurrection was also unique. Non of the people you've cited above had a resurrection combined with an ascension. They were more of a temporary resuscitation back to life. Were are not told expressly, but presumably they lived out their natural lives and then died again. Jesus lived on.

Elijah assended. Are you saying that assention is the sign of divinity? Or is it the combination which counts?

Additional edit: Jesus' resurrection was also unique in that He was the only person in the Bible to predict His own death and resurrection. And fulifill that prediction.

Predicting that you are going to be killed isn't proof of the divine. But I will humor the idea for a moment. Question: Isn't it perfectly possible that God informed Jesus about what he was going to do? If this is the case, how does it prove Jesus divinity?

God will raise the entire race of humanity according to some Christians. But they are not all God. Jesus resurrection does NOT prove that he was a deity.

It proves that He was not a heretic. That Jesus' claims were verified by God.

Granted. The resurrection does support Jesus teachings. But does it prove that he was himself divine? I don't think so.
'