Is the Church really growing?

[_Themis]

I don't hardly know where to begin . There are just too many false statements for me to have time to deal with. However, there is one that really stands out to me, and that is the one that stated; how do we know who the real Jesus was, and that all the accounts were written after His ministry. Although it may not be proven what the exact date of some of the written accounts of Him were written, we know that they were written by his contemporaries and disciples who lived at the same time that He did and were eye witnesses of His ministry. A good example of this is the Book of John. John was one of His apostles who was with Him during His ministry!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John

[_gdemetz]

Themis, in my opinion, you quoted a very poor source. Let me tell you some reasons why, other than it disagrees with some other sources. First of all, it is not vague as if someone were telling the story later, or if it was written later by John, he had a fantastic memory, or else it was obviously inspired, since exact hours when particular events took place are given. Also, he quotes what many of the other apostles stated. Also, he gives account of how he leaned on the breast of Jesus at the last supper, and that he was with Peter and James, although James was martyred before this gospel was written. He also had a certain peculiar and modest way of introducing himself. So, far all these reasons and perhaps more, it is apparent that it was John himself who wrote this gospel, although it does appear that some inserts may have been made to his writing at a later date.

[_Themis]

Themis, in my opinion, you quoted a very poor source.

Although I am not claiming it is a great source, I am not surprised you would think it a poor one. It really is only a starting point anyways.

Let me tell you some reasons why, other than it disagrees with some other sources.

Interesting you don't quote them.

First of all, it is not vague as if someone were telling the story later, or if it was written later by John, he had a fantastic memory, or else it was obviously inspired, since exact hours when particular events took place are given.

Your ignorance is really very apparent on all subjects here. You really need to learn a lot more. I have already suggested some good scientific basics, but I think historical methods is really needed.

[_gdemetz]

Themis, I have read the Bible from cover to cover and gone over it and studied it for more than 50 years as well as reading many commentaries, etc., etc., etc. You won't find very many Christian theologians who don't believe that the Gospel of John was written mostly by John.

[_Drifting]

Themis, I have read the Bible from cover to cover and gone over it and studied it for more than 50 years as well as reading many commentaries, etc., etc., etc. You won't find very many Christian theologians who don't believe that the Gospel of John was written mostly by John.

List the 'very many' theologians who believe the Gospel of John was written mostly by John.

The gospel identifies its author as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." The text does not actually name this disciple, but by the beginning of the 2nd century a tradition began to form which identified him with John the Apostle, one of the Twelve (Jesus's innermost circle). Today the majority of scholars do not believe that John or any other eyewitness wrote it,[12][13][14][15][16][17] and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John; the gospel itself shows signs of having been composed in three "layers", reaching its final form about 90-100 AD.[18][19] According to the Church Fathers, the Bishops of Asia Minor requested John, in his old age, to write a gospel in response to Cerinthus, the Ebionites and other Hebrew groups which they deemed heretical.[20][21][22] This understanding remained in place until the end of the 18th century.[23]
The Gospel of John developed over a period of time in various stages,[24] summarized by Raymond E. Brown as follows:[25]
An initial version based on personal experience of Jesus;
A structured literary creation by the evangelist which draws upon additional sources;
The final harmony that presently exists in the New Testament canon, around 85-90 AD.[26]
In view of this complex and multi-layered history it is meaningless to speak of a single "author" of John, but the title perhaps belongs best to the evangelist who came at the end of this process.[27] The final composition's comparatively late date, and its insistence upon Jesus as a divine being walking the earth in human form, renders it highly problematical to scholars who attempt to evaluate Jesus' life in terms of literal historical truth.[28][29]

[_gdemetz]

Yes, I read that reference already and I think it is secular hogwash. As if some group coming along that late would know the intimate circumstances such as exact hours, etc. It is possible they had a copy of that and may even have added some things to it.

[_Drifting]

Yes, I read that reference already and I think it is secular hogwash.

Of course you do, it doesn't agree with what you want to believe.

As if some group coming along that late would know the intimate circumstances such as exact hours, etc.

So you accept that we really can't know the truth about Jesus because we weren't there?

It is possible they had a copy of that and may even have added some things to it.

Exactly, second and third hand accounts all stemming from one source.

Please name those theologians that believe John was written by John...

[_gdemetz]

Check "External Evidence that the Gospels are Authentic." This site gives references to some, and there are many more.

[_Drifting]

Check "External Evidence that the Gospels are Authentic." This site gives references to some, and there are many more.

Names please.
(You must have them because you stated there were very many)
List your top five.

[_gdemetz]

I gave you a site that lists names. You want me to do your homework for you and make it easier for you to be an anti?