Re: For the Anti-Trinitarians

/ Re: Can some one help me please Re: John's writtings? / 13 Dec 1998 / Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.christnet.bible /
.
Dear Brenton & Helen Hepburn, when I went to answer your post, I found that it had been deleted, so I'm
forced to rely on my meager memory skills. As I recall it, you were wondering about Johannine literature
and the dating of same ... ?
.
First of all, let us make a clear distinction between the author of the third gospel (and 1,2,3 John) and the
author of the Apocalypse. We are dealing with two separate and distinct persons here, both of whom just
happen to be named John. ... Is this confusing? I see no reason why it should be; but Christians have always
had a hard time with simple and basic realities. In any case, we know we are dealing with two writers because
of substantial differences in diction, style, theology, etc. Moreover, Revelation was written from Patmos round
about 95CE by a John who calls himself a prophet. Various clues and hints within the text lead scholars to this
dating, but I will not get into all the specifics here. You are free to consult any good commentary for the
details on all this.
.
Now then, as to the dating of the Gospel According to John, this is roughly from the same time period, but
comes not from the Asia Minor sphere (as does Rev), but rather from Egypt (ie. it was probably written in
Alexandria) circa 90CE. As you pointed out in your post, some contend that John was written as early as 70CE,
but this date is absurd in the extreme. The reason why so many NT books are back-dated is simply because
foolish Christians stupidly suppose that the credibility of the NT depends entirely on the myth that all the NT
literature was finished and in the bag before 100CE. Such anti-historical biases on the part of Christians do
nothing to enhance the credibility of the NT, but do demonstrate that most Christians are utterly unaware
that the Faith is firmly based on real actual historical events that really actually occurred in The Real World.
.
In any case, we date John and the three epistles near the turn of the century owing to the various indications
within the text itself. That is, the situation that surrounds the gospel is one where the Parting of the Ways
(between Judaism and Christianity) was well advanced, and indeed causing more than a little pain and suffering
on both sides. This social atmosphere is the direct result of the proceedings at the so-called Council of Jamnia
(c.85), so any date prior to that is strictly out of the question.
.
Another indication of the late date is the style of the gospel itself, which is deliberately different from Mark and
Matthew, the previous two Gospels that John had at hand. Matthew is dated to c.80CE, so about 15 years after
that would be a good slot for John to respond with his answer to the prior gospels. For more details please consult
any good commentary on the third gospel. ... Oh, and by the way, you might be interested to know that 1John is
a kind of cover letter for the Gospel, and should be read just before beginning the gospel, as it puts everything
into the proper perspective. Check it out.

] unknown say: ... Why is there not one verse that plainly says Jesus is God?
.
] Apple7 answers: There are many.
.
] keypurr asks: Where?
.
textman answers: There are some believers who point to the following text as an example
of Paul affirming the divinity of Jesus Christ:
.
Jesus who in the form of God existing
did not regard to be equal with God
a thing to be grasped
but he poured out himself
the form of a slave taking
having been born in the likeness of men
and having been found in appearance as a man
<snip> Philippians 2:6-7
.
Whoa! Where the heck did that come from? Form? Likeness? Appearance?
Is this really our beloved Paulos talking? ... I think maybe not!
.
I think Paul's original letter runs from 2:4 straight on to 2:12. That whole section from 2:5 to 2:11 was
inserted much later by some clever theologian pretending to sound like Paul. But since when does Paul
use words like 'form' and 'likeness' and 'appearance' in such an obviously neo-platonic fashion? He certainly
makes no further mention of such things in the rest of Philippians; and I'm guessing nowhere else in his
authentic writings either.
.
And if this is true, then we are surely safe in denying that it is the apostle Paul himself who claims that JC
is equal to God! No, *that* claim is made by some uninspired and anonymous scumbag of a redactor who
ought to be thoroughly horse-whipped; except that he's long dead, and therefore out of the reach of my
righteous wrath (alas).
.
Yes, my friends, slowly but surely, the great "proof-texts" of the trinitarians are falling to the ground under
the weight of their own corruption. We have already taken away from them Jn1:1 and 1:18, the two 'God'
additions to Heb1, and now Phil2:6. Soon they will be left holding a tiny bag filled with vile corruptions that
have no place among the inspired texts of the New Testament ...

/ Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.bible, alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic,
/ alt.christnet.philosophy / Topic was > Re: For the Anti-Trinitarians / Date > 27 Feb 2012 / Topic >
.

Will the Real JW Please Stand Up?

.
] On Feb25 jwsheffield quoted the wurm thusly:
.
> On Feb 6, 5:05 am, "cybrwurm" <cybrw...@shaw.REMOVEca> wrote:
> "Why is there not one verse that plainly says Jesus is God?"
.
wurm say: Hey jw, I never said that. I was just quoting someone else who did say that. I'd expect such mistakes from a newbie, but
in your case the error is obviously deliberate ... In other words, a lie. But then again, for catholic apologists, lying is simply another
tool (or rather, weapon) to be used in the ever ongoing battle to defend the cat-faith (which is what we presume jw is doing in
these various newsgroups). Thus jw proclaims with authority the greatness of the catholic traditions through the witnessing voices
of a host of various catholic (and non-catholic) documents both old and new . . .
.
Yes, jw has a thousand voices at his fingertips; none of which are his own, of course. And once again this is typical behavior for
catholic apologists working on the web. Which is why jw at once proceeds to add insult to injury by quoting from the third gospel in
defense of the trinitarian theology (which absurd behavior he *knows* I doth despise to the max) ...

.
] jw: Ex 3:14 - And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM
] hath sent me unto you. Joh 8:58 - Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. Joh 20:28 -
] And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
.
So you see how it is, dear-reader: ignorant interpretations heaped upon corrupted texts. In other words, lies upon lies upon more lies!
jw is obviously a professional cat-apologist (if you take my meaning). And is this "pro" the jw we all know and loathe? Perhaps not.
Hey, for all we know, jwsheffield could be an entire *team* of professional cat-apologists! Which kind of begs the question: who
exactly is pulling the strings on this particular little cat-puppet called 'jwsheffield'?
.
So will the real mister sheffield please and kindly stand up and bow?
.
] On Feb26 (wurm's birthday btw) jw surprises everyone by actually saying something for a change: It's simple,
] in the first century, it was allowed
.
wurm say: "was allowed" by whom and to what end, jw?
.
] jw: to be interpreted as a type of trinity, before the rise of Christianity made that interpretation politically incorrect.
.
You make it sound like trinitarian theology preceeded "the rise of Christianity" and was just waiting for christian-theologians /
] overseers to come into being so that they could at once begin to articulate the "glorious-theology" ... Funny that the prophets
and authors of the NT were insufficient to such a wondrous duty ... ???
.
Kinda makes me wonder ... How about you?
.
btw & anyway, you crossed the line this time, jw. We don't appreciate being misquoted, so you're being put on *probation*! Which
means that if you persist in pestering me in such outrageous fashion, we shall have to take certain measures designed to discourage
such rude and obnoxious behaviors. That's right, I said it (and you can quote me): *stearn*measures*! How would like it if I made my
way over to alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic and started posting there regularly and daily? And if anyone asks why we art peeing in
the happy cat-pool, why I'll just tell them that "wise-old jwsheffield didst send me unto you". Yes, I'm sure your boss will be thrilled to
hear about that. And then you can tell him that you even inspired me to go on twitter too . . .
.
I'm sure he'll just *love* to hear about that!

- the almost ludicrous one ~ cybrwurm ;>

textman
*