PEOPLE WHO BELEIVE IN GOD !!!

[Bob Paradis]

Oct 31, 2010 4:48:55 GMT -5 @enginterzi said:

also Jesus was not the word of GOD but a word of GOD.if he was the word of GOD then he should not have been taught by GOD;


" For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it."


I have many things to say and to judge of you: but he that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him.


Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.




it was the same as Jesus taught to his disciples;

Mt 5:2 And he (Jesus) opened his mouth, and taught them,

Mt 7:29 For he (Jesus) taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes

Mr 2:13 And he (Jesus) went forth again by the sea side; and all the multitude resorted unto him, and he taught them.

Mr 9:31 For he (Jesus) taught his disciples,



then his disciples went away and taught to people what they learnt from Jesus,who learnt from GOD.

Jesus being "the word of God" always meant to me that He was the fulfillment of the Old Testament. Jesus, eternally begotten by the Father, co equal God with the Father and the Holy Spirit, was destined to take the flesh for a time to show us how He would have us behave, including love and relations with one another, and also including how we were to worship Him.

John 6 ; 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.

John 6 ; 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.

John 6 ; 56-57 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father has sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.

[enginterzi]

if Jesus was begotten,then it means that he was begotten,it means something was done about him,and when that thing (begetting,creating,making) happenned was the beginning of Jesus.how can the one who is begotten can exist with the ONE who begets him?

how can Jesus not know the hour of the judgement?

how come Jesus was taught by GOD?

how come Jesus said "FATHER is greater than i"?

how come Jesus called us his brothers?

how come Jesus was commanded by GOD?

how come Jesus said "MY GOD & OUR GOD" but not only "YOUR GOD"?

how come Jesus did not accept being called "GOOD" but said ONLY THE FATHER IS GOOD?

how come Jesus mentioned that he and GOD had different wills,by saying that he came not for "HIS" but for the WILL OF THE FATHER? he also mentioned different wills during his prayers after the last supper?

can god be taught?

can god be commanded?

can god be ordered?

does god worship and pray?

can there be anything that god does not know about such as the time of the judgement? Jesus said this by clearly mentioning himself about not knowing this.

i can cound tens of other things that ;


THE LORD (YAHWEH) OUR GOD ,THE LORD IS ONE !

[enginterzi]

if the one who is begotten can exist with the one who begets then we all have been around since the Adam and Eve.but no,i existed when i was born in october 18. 1974,before then i did not exist for sure as i will be responsible for the times that i have been alive.

[Johnny Edwards]

"In the beginning was the the word and the word was with God". Also says the word was made flesh. Jesus was the word.

[enginterzi]

that is what the writer says.the same book also contains these words;

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

who are they? who are they to witness and was there a doubt about the writer of the book to create a need for their witnessing?

also are the gospels the testimonies of the disciples or inspiration by GOD? if inspiration then why such an important verse is not part of other Gospels? if they are testimonies of the disciples then how could the writer of the book know such an information?



Information on Gospel of John
Robert Kysar writes the following on the authorship of the Gospel of John (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 3, pp. 919-920):


The supposition that the author was one and the same with the beloved disciple is often advanced as a means of insuring that the evangelist did witness Jesus' ministry. Two other passages are advanced as evidence of the same - 19:35 and 21:24. But both falter under close scrutiny. 19:35 does not claim that the author was the one who witnessed the scene but only that the scene is related on the sound basis of eyewitness. 21:24 is part of the appendix of the gospel and should not be assumed to have come from the same hand as that responsible for the body of the gospel. Neither of these passages, therefore, persuades many Johannine scholars that the author claims eyewitness status.

There is a case to be made that John, the son of Zebedee, had already died long before the Gospel of John came to be written. It is worth noting for its own sake, even though the "beloved disciple" need not be identified with John, the son of Zebedee. In his ninth century Chronicle in the codex Coislinianus, George Hartolos says, "[John] was worth of martyrdom." Hamartolos proceeds to quote Papias to the effect that, "he [John] was killed by the Jews." In the de Boor fragment of an epitome of the fifth century Chronicle of Philip of Side, the author quotes Papias: Papias in the second book says that John the divine and James his brother were killed by Jews. Morton Enslin observes (Christian Beginnings, pp. 369-370): "That PapiasÂ’ source of information is simply an inference from Mark 10:35-40 or its parallel, Matt. 20:20-23, is possible. None the less, this Marcan passage itself affords solid ground. No reasonable interpretation of these words can deny the high probability that by the time these words were written [ca. 70 CE] both brothers had 'drunk the cup' that Jesus had drunk and had been 'baptized with the baptism' with which he had been baptized." Since the patristic tradition is unanimous in identifying the beloved disciple with John, at least this evidence discredits the patristic tradition concerning the authorship of the Gospel of John.

If the author of the Gospel of John were an eyewitness, presumably the author would have known that Jesus and his compatriots were permitted to enter the synagogues. But at one several points it is stated that those who acknowledged Jesus as the Christ during the life of Jesus were put out of the synagogue. This anachronism is inconceivable as the product of an eyewitness.
Kysar states that most scholars today see the historical setting of the Gospel of John in the expulsion of the community from the synagogue (op. cit., p. 918). The word aposynagogos is found three times in the gospel (9:22, 12:42, 16:2). The high claims made for Jesus and the response to them (5:18), the polemic against "the Jews" (9:18, 10:31, 18:12, 19:12), and the assertion of a superiority of Christian revelation to the Hebrew (1:18, 6:49-50, 8:58) show that "the Johannine community stood in opposition to the synagogue from which it had been expelled." (p. 918)

Kysar states concerning the dating of the Gospel of John: "Those who relate the expulsion to a formal effort on the part of Judaism to purge itself of Christian believers link the composition of the gospel with a date soon after the Council of Jamnia, which is supposed to have promulgated such an action. Hence, these scholars would date John after 90. Those inclined to see the expulsion more in terms of an informal action on the part of a local synagogue are free to propose an earlier date." (p. 919)

Kysar also observes on the dating of the Gospel of John: "The earliest date for the gospel hinges upon the question of whether or not it presupposes the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E. Most agree that it does, although there have been persistent attempts to argue otherwise. The reasons for positing a post-70 date include the view of the Temple implicit in 2:13-22. Most would argue that the passage attempts to present Christ as the replacement of the Temple that has been destroyed." (p. 918) Note also the irony of 11:48: "If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our place [i.e. temple] and our nation." Finally, there is no mention of the Sadducees, which reflects post-70 Judaism. The retort that there is also no mention of scribes misses the mark, as the Pharisees represented the scribal tradition, and the Pharisees are mentioned.

The terminus a quo might also be set by dependence upon the Gospel of Mark, if it were certain that the Gospel of John is dependent upon Mark. The matter is debated in contemporary scholarship, but Kysar says that the theory of Johannine independence commands a "slim majority" of contemporary critics. For a discussion of this issue, D. Moody Smith's John Among the Gospels is recommended.

The external evidence fixes the terminus ad quem for the Gospel of John. Irenaeus of Lyons made use of John (c. 180), and Tatian included the Gospel of John in his harmony (c. 170). The Gospel of John is also mentioned in the Muratorian Canon (c. 170-200). Justin Martyr (c. 150-160) and the Epistula Apostolorum (c. 140-150) may have made use of the Gospel of John. But the earliest known usage of John is among Gnostic circles. These include the Naassene Fragment quoted by Hippolytus Ref. 5.7.2-9 (c. 120-140), the Valentinian texts cited in Clement of Alexandria's Excerpta ex Theodotou (c. 140-160), a Valentinian Exposition to the Prologue of the Gospel of John quoted in Irenaeus' Adv. Haer. 1.8.5-6 (c. 140-160), and the commentary of Heracleon on John (c. 150-180, quoted in Origen's own commentary). The oldest fragment of the New Testament, known as p52 or the John Rylands fragment, attests to canonical John and is dated paleographically c. 120-130 CE.

Kysar writes: "In the place where the synoptics narrate the origin of the eucharist stands the account of the foot washing (13:1-10). The last meal Jesus celebrates with his disciples before his passion is not a Passover meal at all. Thus one of the basic features of the institution scenes in the synoptics is missing. Furthermore, there is no account of the baptism of Jesus, and there is confusion about whether or not Jesus practiced baptism (compare 3:22 and 4:2). Water baptism is treated critically and assigned strictly to the Baptizer in contrast with Spirit baptism (1:26, 31, 33). One is left with the impression that the sacraments of baptism and eucharist did not figure in the theology of the fourth evangelist." (p. 929)

Kysar states: "The passages which seem to address the sacraments are sometimes thought to be redactional. Some maintain that 'water and' in 3:5 and the discourse in 6:51-59 are insertions of a later hand by one interested in strengthening the explicit sacramental teachings of the gospel. It has been recently argued that portions of chaps. 13-17 come froma redactor at the time of the writing of the Johannine epistles some ten years or more after the completion of the gospel." (p. 922)

Norman Perrin believes that the redactor who added the sacramental passages to the Gospel of John also authored the first epistle of John, in which the sacraments are emphasized.

Helms adduces evidence that there were divisions over the interpretation of John at an early period, as early as the writing of the epistles 1 John and 2 John. Consider the passages 1 John 2:18-19 and 2 John 7. Helms writes (Who Wrote the Gospels?, p. 163):


Some members of the Johannine community departed, became a rival sect, over the question of the 'flesh' of Jesus Christ, an event that leads the author of I John to the certainty that 'this is the last hour.' We do not know for sure who these secessionists were, but as Raymond Brown notes, they were 'not detectably outsiders to the Johannine community but the offspring of Johannine thought itself, justifying their position by the Johannine Gospel and its implications' (1979, 107). This seems likely, until we reflect on the oddity of people who purportedly deny that 'Jesus Christ came in the flesh' citing a gospel that declares 'the Word became flesh,' and 'whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood possesses eternal life.' Brown's argument founders on his insistence that 'John exactly as we have it' (108, his italics) was the text used by those who left the Johannine community. Brown refuses to 'exclude certain passages from the Fourth Gospel on the grounds that they were probably not in the tradition known to the secessionists but were added by the redactor (either later or as anti-secessionist revision)' (1979, 109). He admits that many accept that John 1:14 - 'The Word became flesh' - was 'added by the redactor as an attack on the opponents of I John' (1979, 109) but continues to write as if there were no revision of the Fourth Gospel.

Helms states, "we need to note that part of the purpose of Irenaeus was to attack the teachings of Cerinthus, a gnostic Christian teacher who lived in Ephesus at the end of the first century" (op. cit., p. 162). Cerinthus was "educated in the wisdom of the Egyptians, taught that the world was not made by a primary God, but by a certain Power far separated from him...Moreover, after [Jesus'] baptism, Christ descended upon him in the form of a dove from the Supreme Ruler, and that then he proclaimed the unknown Father, and performed miracles. But at last Christ departed from Jesus, and that then Jesus suffered and rose again, while Christ remained impassible, inasmuch as he was a spiritual being" (1.26.1). Irenaeus stated that the purpose of John at Ephesus was as follows:


by the proclamation of the Gospel, to remove that error which by Cerinthus had been disseminated among men, and a long time previously by those termed Nicolaitans, who are an offset of that 'knowledge' [gnosis] falsely so called, that he might confound them, and persuade them that there is but one God, who made all things by His Word; and not, as they allege, that the Creator was one, but the Father and the Lord another; and that the Son of the Creator was, forsooth, one, but the Christ from above another (3.11.1)

Helms argues: "So the gospel attributed, late in the second century, to John at Ephesus was viewed as an anti-gnostic, anti-Cerinthean work. But, very strangely, Epiphanius, in his book against the heretics, argues against those who actually believed that it was Cerinthus himself who wrote the Gospel of John! (Adv. Haer. 51.3.6). How could it be that the Fourth Gospel was at one time in its history regarded as the product of an Egyptian-trained gnostic, and at another time in its history regarded as composed for the very purpose of attacking this same gnostic? I think the answer is plausible that in an early, now-lost version, the Fourth Gospel could well have been read in a Cerinthean, gnostic fashion, but that at Ephesus a revision of it was produced (we now call it the Gospel of John) that put this gospel back into the Christian mainstream."

[Johnny Edwards]

I never said John wrote the gospel of John. It was written under his name as a means to show the importance of the word. From what I have studied so far in college is the author is unknown.

[Johnny Edwards]

www.themodernreligion.com/basic/quran/quran_who_wrote.htm


Supposedly only 3 possible sources could have written it but it doesn't add up? hmmmm I see holes in anything if I look for them...... Curious Engin who do you think wrote the Quran. Supposedly all of the stuff I believe is inspired by God. I buy that. But I suggest you read that link also since I read your post.

[Johnny Edwards]

As far as the gospels go. Matthew, Mark, and Luke are all very similar but being addressed to different people to let them know who Christ was. John is 90% original. The first 3 were derived from a source we call the Q source. Which was orginally a book with ALL of Jesus's sayings in it. It it said that to write down everything Jesus said there would not be enough books in the world to contain it. Also all this information I am typing is what I learned in college, not from a link I read.

How come Jesus said "I and my father are one".

[enginterzi]

Oct 31, 2010 15:49:00 GMT -5 Johnny Edwards said:

www.themodernreligion.com/basic/quran/quran_who_wrote.htm


Supposedly only 3 possible sources could have written it but it doesn't add up? hmmmm I see holes in anything if I look for them...... Curious Engin who do you think wrote the Quran. Supposedly all of the stuff I believe is inspired by God. I buy that. But I suggest you read that link also since I read your post.

Johnny,

what you call as your belief is also part of my belief.from Adam to the last of the Prophets i believe in all of them.if i dont believe in any of them then according to my belief i become an unbeliever.




do i believe that he was sent by GOD ? yes!

Say: “We believe in God and what is revealed to us and what was revealed to Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes, and what was entrusted to Moses and Jesus and the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and to Him we have surrendered.”(3:84)




do i believe that he was supported with the Holy Spirit? yes!


2.87. And most certainly We gave Musa (Moses)the Book and We sent apostles after him one after another; and We gave Isa (Jesus), the son of Marium (Mary), clear arguments and strengthened him with the holy spirit, What! whenever then an apostle came to you with that which your souls did not desire, you were insolent so you called some liars and some you slew.

do i believe that Mary was a virgin when she had Jesus? yes!

"So her Lord accepted her with gracious acceptance and caused her to grow an excellent growth and made Zachariah her guardian. Whenever Zachariah visited her in the chamber, he found with her provisions. He said, 'O Mary whence hast thou this ?' She replied, 'It is from GOD.' Surely GOD gives to whomsoever HE pleases without measure.
Then and there did Zachariah pray to his Lord, saying, 'My Lord grant me from Thyself pure offspring; surely thou art the Hearer of Prayer.'

And the angels called to him as he stood praying in the chamber, 'GOD gives thee glad tidings of Yahya (John the Baptize), who shall testify to the truth of a word from GOD - noble and chaste and a Prophet, from among the righteous.

He said 'My Lord, how shall I have a son, when old age has overtaken me already, and my wife is barren?' He answered, 'Such is the way of GOD; HE does what HE pleases,'

He said 'My Lord, give me a commandment.' He replied, 'The commandment for thee is that thou shalt not speak to men for three days except by signs.

And remember thy Lord much and glorify HIM in the evening and in the early morning.' And remember when the angels said, 'GOD has chosen thee and purified thee and chosen thee above all women of the time.

'O Mary, be obedient to thy Lord and prostrate thyself and worship the one God with those who worship HIM.'

This is of the tidings of things unseen which WE reveal to thee. And thou was not with them when they cast their arrows, as to which of them should be the guardian of Mary, nor was thou with them when they disputed with one another.

When the angels said, 'O Mary, GOD gives thee glad tidings of a son through a word from HIM; his name shall be the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, honoured in this world and in the next, and of those who are granted nearness to God;

'And he shall speak to the people in the cradle, and when of middle age, and he shall be of the righteous.

She said, 'My Lord, how shall I have a son, when no man has touched me? He said, 'Such is the way of GOD. HE creates what HE pleases. When HE decrees a thing HE says to it 'Be,' and it is;"—Qur'an, Surah 3:38-48




do i believed that Jesus performed all kind of miracles by the authority that was given by GOD? yes!

And he will teach him the Book and the wisdom, and the Torah and the Gospel. And will make him a messenger to the Children of Israel, (saying): I come to you with a sign from your Lord. See! I fashion for you out of clay the likeness of a bird, and I breathe into it and it is a bird, by God’s leave. I heal him who was born blind, and the leper, and I raise the dead, by God’s leave. And I announce to you what you eat and what you store up in your houses. Here truly is a portent for you, if you are to be believers. And (I come) confirming what was before me of the Torah, and to make lawful some of what was forbidden to you. I come to you with a sign from your Lord, so keep your duty to God and obey me. God is my Lord and your Lord, so worship Him. This is a straight path. But when Jesus became conscious of their disbelief, he cried: Who will be my helpers in the cause of God? The disciples said: We will be God’s (cause’s) helpers. We believe in God, and bear you witness that we have surrendered (to Him). Our Lord! We believe in what You have revealed and follow him whom You have sent. Enrol us among those who witness (to the Truth). (3:45-53)




do i believe that he was taken to heaven? yes!


3.55. Lo! God said: "O Jesus! Verily, I shall cause thee to die, and shall exalt thee unto Me, and cleanse thee of [the presence of] those who are bent on denying the truth; and I shall place those who follow thee [far] above those who are bent on denying the truth, unto the Day of Resurrection. In the end, unto Me you all must return, and I shall judge between you with regard to all on which you were wont to differ.

GOD raised him up to Himself. GOD is Almighty, All-Wise. (Surat an-Nisa': 158)


do i believe that he will be back? yes!

He is a Sign of the Hour. Have no doubt about it. But follow me. This is a straight path. (Surat az-Zukhruf: 61)


do i believe that he received and preached Gospel? yes!

"GOD is HE besides Whom there is none worthy of worship, the Living, the Self-Subsisting and All-Sustaining. HE has sent down to thee the Book containing the truth and fulfilling that which precedes it; and HE has sent down the Torah (Law of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guidance to the people; and HE has sent down the Discrimination (judgement between right and wrong)."—Qur'an, Surah 3:3-4



just because i do not believe him to be god why is it such a great offense to you? you sound like a person who is in darkness and disturbed by the light.


************************************************


about the link you posted,it says that Quran is the Word of GOD.what is wrong with that?


Quran was written down by the believers of our Prophet.the inspiration came to him by Gabriel and he recite and believers wrote them down.what is big news about it?

the difference is that Prophet established his religion and ruled his nation with the law of GOD.there was not any chaos such as the chaos that happenned after the departure of Jesus (persecutions against the Christians).i have read man letters of the Bishops and Popes up till the 4. century that they did not agree about which books to be part of the new testament.i mean over 300 years after Jesus' departure they still were not in agreement about it and i can prove my claim by their letters.last night i read st. Eusobius' letter and even he did not accept some of the new testament parts that you read today.during the Niecean Council the Book was finalised.

trying to understand the truth can be offense to only for someone who is disturbed by the truth.no one owns Jesus,i believe in him with love&respect no less than i love Prophet Muhammad.amongst the True Muslims you will find the same feelings about Jesus.i believe in messengers of GOD as much as i believe in GOD since they are the ones who bring the Word of GOD.


Johnny,if you wanna discuss about who wrote Quran and if you will depend on the historical facts only then lets do it.once Ryan brought a subject about ALLAH being the moon god stuff and i even proved that ALLAH is actually in Bible as the name of GOD.and even before Islam, Christian Arabs called GOD as "ALLAH" and even today GOD's name in Arabic Bible is ALLAH.so please do your best but check good your sources before making a claim.today on this earth i am guessing millions of people can write Quran down from their own memory.



Quran to contain things which happenned before Quran's revelation,in A CORRECT WAY,is very normal.Quran does not say that it came from a different Creator.

about Quran being revealed in 23 years is an education of a bad nation.you need to finish elementary school to attend high school and then the university.Arabs of that time were doing terrible things such as worshipping idols,burying their child in the dessert if the child born female (man power was important) and other sick things.Quran slowly educated them day by day,year by year.they were not as the children of Israel who already knew the LORD.


Johnny,all over the world the colleges do not teach the same history lesson so please do not see college as an education by GOD or something.they use the sources and they choose the sources and it changes from country to country.

you still quote me the same verse even though i answered it times and times.it just shows that you dont really follow the discussion but just read a few posts then post something.

it is ok,i will answer again;

Jesus said, "I and My Father are one" (John 10:30). Christ prayed that his disciples, both then and in the future, would be unified in mind and purpose just as he and the Father were. "I do not pray for these [disciples] alone," He said, "but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us" (John 17:20-21).

so Jesus prayed that all believers to be ONE IN GOD,so everyone who believes in GOD are ONE WITHIN GOD and Jesus.now how many gods we have in our hands if that verse made Jesus a god?

[enginterzi]

what do you think of this claim;

The internal evidence against the authenticity of the Fourth Gospel is conclusive. The Apostle John did not write it. John, the apostle, was a Jew; the author of the Fourth Gospel was not a Jew. John was born at Bethsaida; the author of the Fourth Gospel did not know where Bethsaida was located. John was an uneducated fisherman; the author of this Gospel was an accomplished scholar. Some of the most important events in the life of Jesus, the Synoptics declare, were witnessed by John; the author of this knows nothing of these events. The Apostle John witnessed the crucifixion; the author of this Gospel did not. The Apostles, including John, believed Jesus to be a man; the author of the Fourth Gospel believed him to be a god.

[Bob Paradis]

Oct 31, 2010 18:54:59 GMT -5 @enginterzi said:

what do you think of this claim;

The internal evidence against the authenticity of the Fourth Gospel is conclusive. The Apostle John did not write it. John, the apostle, was a Jew; the author of the Fourth Gospel was not a Jew. John was born at Bethsaida; the author of the Fourth Gospel did not know where Bethsaida was located. John was an uneducated fisherman; the author of this Gospel was an accomplished scholar. Some of the most important events in the life of Jesus, the Synoptics declare, were witnessed by John; the author of this knows nothing of these events. The Apostle John witnessed the crucifixion; the author of this Gospel did not. The Apostles, including John, believed Jesus to be a man; the author of the Fourth Gospel believed him to be a god.

It's the Gospel according to John, not written by John. He had educated followers as well as not so educated. A lot was written by his followers and passed on. The Gospel according to John is cannon. It is authentic.

Evidence against the authenticity of the 4th gospel is not by any means conclusive. Whoever wrote that is an idiot, even if you tell me it is a scholar.

[enginterzi]

i realise that most of the questions can not be answered.


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

why were these words needed to be put in this Gospel? did the witnessing of these people (whoever wrote "WE") prove that it was the Gospel of John?

i have found tons of differences between the first 3 Gospels and Gospel of John.it seems like parties witnessed different stories of Jesus (if anyone disagrees then i can list the differences by verses).


Bob,you believe or not,the idea of LOGOS (the WORD) existed & used by Greek Theologians before Jesus.

LOGOS
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos


Logos (pronounced /ˈloʊɡɒs/, /ˈlɒgɒs/ (UK), or /ˈloʊgoʊs/ (US); Greek λόγος logos) is an important term in philosophy, psychology, rhetoric and religion. Originally a word meaning "word," "speech," "account," or "reason," it became a technical term in philosophy, beginning with Heraclitus (ca. 535–475 BC), who used the term for the principle of order and knowledge.



some quotes;

Philo, Allegorical Interpretation III XXXI (96) (p. 61)

... But the shadow of God is his word [logos], which he used like an instrument when he was making the world. And this shadow, and, as it were, model, is the archetype of other things. ...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Philo, On the Creation XLVIII (139) (p. 20)

... For God does not seem to have availed himself of any other animal existing in creation as his model in the formation of man; but to have been guided, as I have said before, by his own reason [logos] alone. ...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Philo, On Husbandry XII (45) (p. 178)

... For God, like a shepherd and king, governs (as if they were a flock of sheep) the earth, and the water, and the fire, and the air and all the plants, and living creatures that are in them, whether mortal or divine; and he regulates the nature of the heaven, and the periodical revolutions of the sun and moon, and the variations and harmonious movements of the other stars, ruling them according to law and justice; appointing as their immediate superintendent, his own right reason [logos], his first-born son, who is to receive the charge of this sacred company, as the lieutenant of the great king;

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Philo, Who Is the Heir of Divine Things XXVI (130) (p. 287)

... it was the untaught God who divides them, and that he divided all the natures of bodies and things one after another, which appeared to be closely fitted together and united by his word [logos], which cuts through everything; which being sharpened to the finest possible edge, never ceases dividing all the objects of the outward senses, ...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Philo, Who Is the Heir of Divine Things XXXVIII (188) (p. 292)

... if there is anywhere anything consolidated, that has been bound by the word [logos] of God, for this word is glue and a chain, filling all things with its essence. And the word, which connects together and fastens every thing, is peculiarly full of itself, having no need whatever of any thing beyond.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Philo, Who Is the Heir of Divine Things XLVIII (234) (p. 296)

... the two natures are indivisible; the nature, I mean, of the reasoning power in us, and of the divine Word [logos] above us; but though they are indivisible themselves, they divide an innumerable multitude of other things.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heraclitus, fr. 1 (p. 19)

Although this Logos is eternally valid, yet men are unable to understand it -- not only before hearing it, but even after they have heard it for the first time. That is to say, although all things come to pass in accordance with this Logos , men seem to be quite without any experience of it -- at least if they are judged in the light of such words and deeds as I am here setting forth. ...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diogenes Laertius, VII, 136 (pp. 240-241)

In the beginning [God] was by himself; he transformed the whole of substance through air into water, and just as in animal generation the seed has a moist vehicle, so in cosmic moisture, God, who is the seminal reason [logos] of the universe remains behind in the moisture ...

[Johnny Edwards]

Regarding John. The gospel does not mention the authors identity. The gospel implies that it's author, unlike Peter, James, and John, did not die a martyrs death. Many historians think it likely that Herod Agrippa executed the apostle John along with his brother James about 41-43CE.

Some critics propose that another John, prominent in the church at Ephesus about 100 CE, is the author. Except that he was called "John the Elder", we know nothing that would connect him with the Jahannine writings. Lacking definite confirmation of traditional authorship, scholars regard the work as anonymous.

source pg. 237 The New Testament: a students introduction 6th edition
Stephen L. Harris.


Nobody here said that John himself wrote the gospel?? Not sure what your argument is except to try and disprove John which has never been done. It has been proven to show Jesus in a more spirtual way rather than show him through his works as the other 3 gospels do. The works are associated with the "Beloved Disciple".

Another quote from pg 216

"The writer, who does not indentify himself, states that his version of Jesus' life is based on testimony of an unnamed "beloved diciple". Scholars classify the work as anonymous."

[Johnny Edwards]

Anyone ever read the gospel of Thomas??? Or the book of Enoch? Enoch was quoted by Jesus.

[Johnny Edwards]

That link said that the author of the Quran is unknown Engin just like most history books. They were originally oral an later became written down history. Nobody knows the authors of the Quran. it was influenced by God. Divine inspiration. Who do you think physically wrote it?