The Evolution of Jesus in Early Christianity

a reply to: Ove38

The old man (Adam) came out of earth, the new man (Jesus) cam out of heaven. John 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

I accept that. But also remember that when Adam was taken from the earth that the earth was not cursed with corruption and death. After Adam sinned and was cast from the garden he and Eve both experienced a substance change. Eth Cepher of 4 Ezra will give the most accurate account that we have today. Adam and Eve were both celestial substance before they and the earth was cursed. The garden was considered to be also celestial before it was taken from Adam. Adam an Eve had a very troublesome conversion from celestial to terrestrial according to the Ezra Revity'ly (4 Ezra).

Jesus' spirit was the preexisting Word of God and has now returned to being The Word of God but his flesh was of the earth.

a reply to: Seede

It 95% percent agrees in th subjective interpretation of the person who put out the 95% claim..


That fact that it is measuring the subjective meaning. Makes it seem like a bs stat to me..


No 2 documents are textually 95% the same.. let alone an over all 95% consensus..

So He fashioned a covering for them. Is that our skin? Our skin under a microscope looks like scales. Like reptile scales.a reply to: Seede

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Ove38

The old man (Adam) came out of earth, the new man (Jesus) cam out of heaven. John 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Jesus' spirit was the preexisting Word of God and has now returned to being The Word of God but his flesh was of the earth.

No, Jesus is still the new human that cam out of heaven and returned to heaven.

a reply to: bulwarkz

So He fashioned a covering for them. Is that our skin? Our skin under a microscope looks like scales. Like reptile scales.a reply to: Seede

I don't believe it was as our skin and the reason being that Adam was of a celestial substance of the earth before he was formed. This world and in fact the entire universe was not terrestrial or sinful as we know it now. Death is the direct result of sin. there was a reason that God planted His Gan Eden and a reason that He placed Adam in this Gan Eden. Tradition tells us that Adam was reduced in stature by reducing his glory. What is glory? Some traditionalists say that glory is a celestial covering of the substance of the Creator.

Revelation tells us that this glory is a new body to cover the spirit and John describes it as being a robe with a new name. Revelation tells us that this new body will be forever with the nourishment from the trees of Gan Eden which is located in the celestial New Jerusalem. This fits the exact same description that Adam experienced in lower Gan Eden. Gan Eden was taken from this world and given to the third heaven of New Jerusalem. By this, I believe our covering as a body is subjected to death and decay as it returns to its source in the earth but Adam had enjoyed everlasting life as he was nourished from the Gan Eden. That is till sin entered and changed his entire substance . It was then that the Creator covered his shed glory with a corrupt covering of animal skins and cast him out of the garden before he could eat and live forever in sin.

So n my understanding, I believe the skin we have now as humans is a terrestrial covering of a corrupt terrestrial material that does not remotely resemble the heavenly glory.

1Corinthians 15:40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

a reply to: Ove38
I would not argue that with you as you may be entirely correct. There are two camps in understanding this and you have a very good point. The mother of Jesus was impregnated by the power of the Holy Spirit and the child was nourished by the mother. The question is therefore a great mystery. Was Jesus nourished by terrestrial nourishment or by celestial nourishment? We can also see where this leads a lot of people to not understand resurrection which is part of the immaculate conception. What happened to Jesus' body in His resurrection? When we die don't we leave our old bodies and enter the next abode. Is Jesus' resurrection different than ours?

If Jesus had a restoration instead of a resurrection then I can understand a little more but when I ask why didn't Jesus leave His old body, such as we do, then the question becomes controversy. If the biblical account is complete then we have a problem as to why we do not have the same resurrection. That is where you come in. The body and spirit of Jesus must then have been celestial in the first place or was Jesus total spirit in both body and spirit? Can you help in explaining this?

I was implying our skin came after the fall. I am in the camp that has the anakim, nephilim etc. still among us today. They too inhabit this skin covering. I believe they are reincarnated using these flesh bodies as they are bound to earth for this time.
I lean to this being snake skin as a result of the fall. That the bloodlines have been mixed.

These flesh bodies are the vehicles for this existance. I am intrigued with your discussion of the celestial bodies. Great insights from it.a reply to: Seede

a reply to: bulwarkz

Text - I was implying our skin came after the fall. I am in the camp that has the anakim, nephilim etc. still among us today. They too inhabit this skin covering. I believe they are reincarnated using these flesh bodies as they are bound to earth for this time. I lean to this being snake skin as a result of the fall. That the bloodlines have been mixed. These flesh bodies are the vehicles for this existance. I am intrigued with your discussion of the celestial bodies.

Now let me explain to you that you are probably unaware that there were two invasions from the heavens of the Creator. The first of these was the creation of evil which revealed choice. That is the only true way you can understand love and that is the entire concept of the Creator. He must have love by choice and therefore created evil to show us choice.

Choice then was shown in the celestial heaven first and as the result of their choice the angels who chose evil instead of love to the Creator were cast out from the abode of God. These angels who were cast down to this earth were eventually imprisoned in the neither world of Sheol and are there till the last day.

The second assault is that of which Enoch teaches. This was in the days of Jared [Yered] which was over 460 years after Adam was formed. Enoch tells us that 200 angels came down to Mt. Herman, mated with the human species and after many years procreated a race great giants. In this period of antediluvian creation, all people were of gigantic nature but they were not great giants. These great giants were sub human and not of the Adamic seed.

The great giants in turn then bred the race of Nephillym who also were subhuman and it were the Nephillym who then bred another race of sub humans called Elioud's. All three of these subhuman races were cannibal’s and were not the creation of the Creator. This was the primary reason the three sub human races were then destroyed with a flood.

Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the
daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

When you read this you must read the account in order. This account is talking about the human race was a race of giants before the angels bred human women and produce great giants. The human race of giants were in the antediluvian period before there were great giants. The Human race was not called great giants but they were giants in comparison to what we are today. After the humans bred with the celestial angels, that race was called great giants who then bred into the Nephilliym. So the confusion came in people reading [Gen. 6:4] as giants being the race of great giants. This verse is one of the most confused points in the Hebrew bible and should be read as meaning that there were giants [humans] in the earth in those antediluvian days and also human giants after the three races were destroyed.

The spirits of the great giants and their procreated Nephillym and Elioud’s were called evil spirits and Enoch calls them The Watchers. The spirits of watchers were then punished in Sheol for seventy generations and then released to wander about the earth seeking rest till the great day when they shall be cast into the lake of fire.

So here we see that the watchers were bound for seventy generations and were then released to wander as evil spirits till the last day. These then were the Satan’s that Jesus fought and still offend people today. It is not the fallen angels of the rebellion in heaven but are these watchers which were destroyed as Great Giants and their offspring in the flood of Noah.

This then brings to question the idea of reincarnated spirits. I don’t see any scriptures of Nazarene teaching of reincarnation whatsoever. Can you give me any information concerning reincarnation? There were some sects of Judaism that did teach reincarnation and also preexistence of the spirit before birth but this is not Nazarene doctrine.

a reply to: EasternShadow

The four gospels are not only differents, they are also contradicting with each other. For example, the three synoptic gospels mentioned Simon of Cyrene carried Jesus Cross. John said Jesus carried the cross all by himself. The three synoptic gospels said, Jesus did not drink the wine. John said Jesus drank the wine before said,"it is finished" and died. This contradicting accounts could not be reconciled into one unified persepective. It make no sense. Erhman knows but he purposely left it out because it will destroy his evolution theory.

In re reading your and others posts, you seem to not understand how accounts of the same happening can differ or one can obtain more or less insight in the same happening than others of the same happening. The first and foremost thing to consider is how each one of the accounts is obtained.

In reading the apostles accounts, they tell us that it was Jesus that did bear his cross beam but was unable to complete the task. Matthew tells us that Jesus was in fact given the beam to carry till they found the man Simon to finish the task. Why would this be? Simply because Jesus could not carry the beam any further. Mark tells us that they found a man called Simon to carry the beam. John's account tells us that Jesus carried His beam. For how long did Jesus carry his beam? Don't know, but one thing is clear and that is that both Jesus and Simon carried the beam. At what point did they order Simon to carry the beam? Don't know. They found Simon did they not? Who was carrying the beam till Simon carried the beam? Don't know and it is not even worth the concern is it? Where is the contradiction?


It is also tradition that tells us that a disciple was seated with Jesus' mother at a distance from the cross but yet near enough to hear Jesus tell him to care for His mother. Did the other accounts tell this? Why not? Because the other apostles were not there and John was. Does this mean that it never happened? No, it does not. All it means to me is that the other accounts are those of the apostles who were not there at the site.

Matthew tells us that Jesus was offered to drink the vinegar but does not say that Jesus did drink. Mark says that Jesus was offered vinegar but did not drink. Luke tells us that Jesus was only offered vinegar but does not say He drank the vinegar. John tells us that Jesus was offered vinegar but no more than that. And you make it sound as though there is a great conflict over those accounts? I think the conflict is in your wanting conflict.

a reply to: Seede

There was no "cross beam" in any of the accounts...

Jesus carried a stake, or a large pole... Not a cross beam

IF the accounts were correct, Jesus would have been tied to the cross beam... so he would have been forced to carry it regardless...

In The account with simon, Jesus collapses and drops the pole... And Simon carries it in his stead

the gospels do conflict with each other on many accounts... though, i don't agree with EasternShadow in that Ehrman left it out of his lecture... It wasn't a factor in the evolution of Jesus

Its very simple to find another lecture of his called "do the gospels agree with each other" in which he covers a good portion of the contradictions

a reply to: Akragon

There was no "cross beam" in any of the accounts... Jesus carried a stake, or a large pole... Not a cross beam IF the accounts were correct, Jesus would have been tied to the cross beam... so he would have been forced to carry it regardless...

There are many accounts of that same thought and you may well be correct but not as I choose to understand it. There are some accounts that tell us that only a pole or live tree was used while yet other accounts tell us that the poles were used many times over and were kept in their sockets which were set in the stones atop the hill of execution. Some accounts tell us that nails were not used and yet we have some evidence that tell us that seats were used on the poles and that nails were most certainly used. The shroud of Turin clearly shows that nail were used in the victim of the shroud.

I read a paper that tells of the cross beam being tied to the inset of the pole and the victim then nailed to the cross beam. The cross beam being discarded after one execution and the pole used many times after an execution. So in lite of this it is more reasonable [to me] to understand that a cross beam was used at each execution and discarded rather than a pole being fashioned at each execution to fit a stone socket.

Quote
First, Jesus was ordered to carry his own cross. (John 19:17, Matt 27:32). This would not have been the entire cross that he carried, as is often portrayed in film, but rather the crossbeam of his own cross (the patibulum). A full cross would have weighed over 300lbs. Romans often had someone condemned carry the crossbeam, to add to their humiliation and punishment. Once it was set up, they would leave it up for future crucifixions.
Unquote
my source ebible.com... ole-or-stake

a reply to: Seede

The Romans executed people in all sorts of ways, and yes there are various accounts of different ways it was done...

I tend to take what happened as its shown in the books... cross referenced by actual historical fact

No cross beam was mentioned in any of the accounts as i've said..

Jesus would not been able to carry an entire wooden cross, though he could have dragged a Pole

the cross is "added imagery" to the story, but its not actually present in any of the gospels...

He was nailed to a "Stake" Stauros in greek (σταυρός)...

And we actually have an example of a First century person that has been nailed to a Stake in such a fashion..



And though there is no possible way to know how he was actually executed...the evidence of Jesus being nailed to an actual pole far outweighs the Cross in Christian tradition

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: EasternShadow
In reading the apostles accounts, they tell us that it was Jesus that did bear his cross beam but was unable to complete the task. Matthew tells us that Jesus was in fact given the beam to carry till they found the man Simon to finish the task. Why would this be? Simply because Jesus could not carry the beam any further. Mark tells us that they found a man called Simon to carry the beam. John's account tells us that Jesus carried His beam. For how long did Jesus carry his beam? Don't know, but one thing is clear and that is that both Jesus and Simon carried the beam. At what point did they order Simon to carry the beam? Don't know. They found Simon did they not? Who was carrying the beam till Simon carried the beam? Don't know and it is not even worth the concern is it? Where is the contradiction?

I'm sorry, I don't follow up this thread further to notice you have replied to my post.

First of all, Simon of Cyrene was not some random unknown "passerby". The Apostles knew him. Mark, Matthew and Luke knew he's a Cyrene man. Mark identified him as the father or Rufus and Alexander. So it's not possible for John to have "missed" Simon of Cyrene carried the cross, considered that ( you assume ) he was there when Jesus was crucified.

Second, I'm well aware of Roman's crucifixion tradition from history perspective may differ from the Bible. All english gospels used "cross". Therefore I stick to bible account's cross.

Matthew 27:32
As they went out, they came upon a man from Cyrene named Simon; they compelled this man to carry his cross.

Luke 23:26
As they led him away, they seized a man, Simon of Cyrene, who was coming from the country, and they laid the cross on him, and made him carry it behind Jesus.

Mark 15:21
They compelled a passer-by, who was coming in from the country, to carry his cross; it was Simon of Cyrene, the father of Alexander and Rufus.

John:19:16-17
Finally Pilate handed him over to them to be crucified. So the soldiers took charge of Jesus. Carrying his own cross, he went out to the place of the Skull (which in Aramaic is called Golgotha).

As you can see from all 4 gospels, John was the only one who "missed" Simon of Cyrene. You asked at what point did Simon took the cross? Mark, Luke and Matthew answered that, "as they led him away" or "as they went out". Even if you argued Jesus did carried the cross at some point, it's undeniable that Mark, Luke and Matthew testified Simon was the last person to carry the cross. Therefore, John could not possibly missed out Simon, since you assume he was present at crucifixion.

originally posted by: Seede
It is also tradition that tells us that a disciple was seated with Jesus' mother at a distance from the cross but yet near enough to hear Jesus tell him to care for His mother. Did the other accounts tell this? Why not? Because the other apostles were not there and John was. Does this mean that it never happened? No, it does not. All it means to me is that the other accounts are those of the apostles who were not there at the site.

You forget John testified there were only three family or disciples stood next to Jesus. The three Marys. If he could testified the three Marys, why couldn't he testified other disciples? Why couldn't he identified this "beloved disciple"? He seem to have no problem to name Simon Peter and Judas Iscariot, yet he can't name who this "beloved disciple" was?

John 19:25
Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.

Now let's us examine Matthew.
Matthew 27:40-41
There were also women looking on from a distance; among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome. These used to follow him and provided for him when he was in Galilee; and there were many other women who had come up with him to Jerusalem.

See? All females. No Peter. No Luke. No Mark. No Matthew and No John. Therefore, it was obvious. Luke, Matthew, Mark and John were not the eyewitness to Jesus crucifixion.

Mary the mother, Mary the wife of Clopas and Mary Magdalene were the only true eyewitness. And because, John was obvious NOT "among the women", therefore he could not be the "beloved disciple" of Jesus either. The most plausible explanation would be Mary Magdalene.

According to John, the three Marys stood next to Jesus. According to Matthew, "among the women" were looking from distance. Another contradiction and another evidences that none of the apostles witness the crucifixion.

originally posted by: Seede
Matthew tells us that Jesus was offered to drink the vinegar but does not say that Jesus did drink.

Wrong answer. Seriously did you even read Jesus crucifixion chapter at all or your memory failed you?

Matthew 27:34
they offered him wine to drink, mixed with gall; but when he tasted it, he would not drink it.

originally posted by: Seede
Mark says that Jesus was offered vinegar but did not drink.

Mark 15:23
And they offered him wine mixed with myrrh; but he did not take it.

originally posted by: Seede
Luke tells us that Jesus was only offered vinegar but does not say He drank the vinegar.

Luke missed it out because Luke was too busy narrating the two bandits next to him, which Mark, Matthew and John had missed.

originally posted by: Seede
John tells us that Jesus was offered vinegar but no more than that.

Again wrong answer.

John 19:28-30
Later, knowing that everything had now been finished, and so that Scripture would be fulfilled, Jesus said, “I am thirsty.” A jar of wine vinegar was there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus’ lips. When he had received the drink, Jesus said, “It is finished.” With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

originally posted by: Seede
And you make it sound as though there is a great conflict over those accounts? I think the conflict is in your wanting conflict.

If you can't read the obvious conflicts, that is because you either didn't read the Chapter, or you are ignorant, or you have forgotten, or you are too blinded to see the error in human writing for the word of god. In whichever cases, I can't help you.

I only listed very few contradictions. If you want to talk more contradictions you are welcome to.

a reply to: EasternShadow

Good post... though

See? All females. No Peter. No Luke. No Mark. No Matthew and No John. Therefore, it was obvious. Luke, Matthew, Mark and John were not the eyewitness to Jesus crucifixion.

Luke wasn't anywhere around when Jesus was alive... he was a follower of paul, who came much afterwords

Luke says he interviewed people for his gospel... and the most likely person he went to was Mary

interesting that you make the connection of mary being the "beloved disciple" though...

Gnostic texts say that same thing

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: EasternShadow
Luke wasn't anywhere around when Jesus was alive... he was a follower of paul, who came much afterwords

Luke says he interviewed people for his gospel... and the most likely person he went to was Mary

interesting that you make the connection of mary being the "beloved disciple" though...

Gnostic texts say that same thing

Gnostic texts were classified and filtered by Early Church "Fathers". One of them was Eusebius. Considering, he would justified lies only to benefit and support the pagan sun emperor Constantine, I highly distrust Eusebius work.

I've read the Gospel of Mary. Nothing to suggest her gospel contain blasphemous idea or failed "soon to happen" prophesy like John of Patmos' Revelation. She mentioned the seven deadly sin in term of spiritual guidance and many pages were lost. Sigh.. Perhaps it's fate we would never know what actually happen at Jesus Crucifixion and Resurrection, from true eyewitness account.

a reply to: EasternShadow

Gnostic texts were classified and filtered by Early Church "Fathers". One of them was Eusebius. Considering, he would justified lies only to benefit and support the pagan sun emperor Constantine, I highly distrust Eusebius work.

Actually im pretty sure Eusebius was on Arius' side... In his writing he mentions the way people are to be baptized, "in Jesus' name" he was not trinitarian... Its said that he had early copies of many books, and an extensive library... which was why the trinitarian formula was omitted from his writing

Gnostic text were classified as heretical in the early second century... but it was already a corrupt church so many of their claims can not be trusted in my opinion... Though its interesting that Jesus commissioned a lot of people according to the gospels.... yet only 4 people decided to write anything about him... Personally i think some of those people wrote the gnostic texts

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: EasternShadow
Actually im pretty sure Eusebius was on Arius' side... In his writing he mentions the way people are to be baptized, "in Jesus' name" he was not trinitarian... Its said that he had early copies of many books, and an extensive library... which was why the trinitarian formula was omitted from his writing.

His mentor was Origen and his vast sources of library was from Origen. Origen was not very popular among few of influential Bishops, which ended Origen been declared Heretic. There were lot of conspiracies and slanderous accusation among early churches, it's difficult to pinpoint who was truly honest.

originally posted by: Akragon
Gnostic text were classified as heretical in the early second century... but it was already a corrupt church so many of their claims can not be trusted in my opinion... Though its interesting that Jesus commissioned a lot of people according to the gospels.... yet only 4 people decided to write anything about him... Personally i think some of those people wrote the gnostic texts

Peter wrote His own Gospel but The church chose John instead, to fill the "quota". The reason was, all this gnostics texts were considered unknown, unverified and did no fit whatever doctrines the Church wanted to implant. Transition from Judaism to Greco-Roman idealism was mostly political motivation influenced by Roman Emperor. A lot of "things" happen then, such as Greek philosophy was incorporated into Christian dogma.

Ehrman need a lot more work to explain his evolution theory. And a lot of muddy conspiracies to wade on.

a reply to: Seede

So n my understanding, I believe the skin we have now as humans is a terrestrial covering of a corrupt terrestrial material that does not remotely resemble the heavenly glory.

Wonderful explanation Seede.

a reply to: EasternShadow

If you can't read the obvious conflicts, that is because you either didn't read the Chapter, or you are ignorant, or you have forgotten, or you are too blinded to see the error in human writing for the word of god. In whichever cases, I can't help you.

Did not intend you to be so contentious.

First of all, Simon of Cyrene was not some random unknown "passerby". The Apostles knew him. Mark, Matthew and Luke knew he's a Cyrene man. Mark identified him as the father or Rufus and Alexander. So it's not possible for John to have "missed" Simon of Cyrene carried the cross, considered that ( you assume ) he was there when Jesus was crucified. Text

You are correct in that I was wrong to state that John the apostle was there at the crucifixion without the biblical account actually saying that it was John. Nevertheless I believe that you also error in stating the following ------------

"According to John, the three Marys stood next to Jesus. According to Matthew, "among the women" were looking from distance. Another contradiction and another evidences that none of the apostles witness the crucifixion."

The reason I question this of what you have written is in the following verse---

John 19:26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!

This shows that indeed the loved disciple was a male and not a female as you have stated. In past studies from textual criticism I noted that only one apostle was regarded as being favored of Jesus and that apostle was John. That teaching along with this "Son" being at the cross leaves me to strongly believe that the disciple at the crucifixion was indeed the apostle John. Also in looking at the order of the very first synagogue of James, it is recorded that John was second in command under James. This and the the fact that John was chosen to write Revelation also shows that he indeed was very special. In this regard was why I accepted the theory that John was indeed the loved disciple in this narrative of John.

Also I did write that Matthew tells us that Jesus was offered to drink the vinegar but does not say that Jesus did drink.
You then answered with a resounding angry ---

Quote- “Wrong answer. Seriously did you even read Jesus crucifixion chapter at all or your memory failed you?” Unquote

You then posted - Matthew 27:34 they offered him wine to drink, mixed with gall; but when he tasted it, he would not drink it.

Your answer was that I was totally wrong and that the correct answer was Matthew 27:34.

Wasn’t my statement the same as your answer? I don’t understand your anger when we both quoted Matthew in the same manner.

When you examine the entire accounts you will find that different people see different happenings and also there were some who may have been witness and others who write from the witnesses and were not a witness. I based my accounts of understanding on the loved disciple being a male and also being John. Actually it is all theology and not verifiable and in that respect I do appreciate your opinions as well as my own. Lol ----------

originally posted by: Seede
Did not intend you to be so contentious.

I apologize.

originally posted by: Seede
Nevertheless I believe that you also error in stating the following ------------

"According to John, the three Marys stood next to Jesus. According to Matthew, "among the women" were looking from distance. Another contradiction and another evidences that none of the apostles witness the crucifixion."

The reason I question this of what you have written is in the following verse---

John 19:26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!

This shows that indeed the loved disciple was a male and not a female as you have stated. In past studies from textual criticism I noted that only one apostle was regarded as being favored of Jesus and that apostle was John. That teaching along with this "Son" being at the cross leaves me to strongly believe that the disciple at the crucifixion was indeed the apostle John.

I read "thy son" literally as Jesus. There is no biblical evidence to link Mary's son with John.

originally posted by: Seede
Also I did write that Matthew tells us that Jesus was offered to drink the vinegar but does not say that Jesus did drink.
You then answered with a resounding angry ---

Quote- “Wrong answer. Seriously did you even read Jesus crucifixion chapter at all or your memory failed you?” Unquote

You then posted - Matthew 27:34 they offered him wine to drink, mixed with gall; but when he tasted it, he would not drink it.

Your answer was that I was totally wrong and that the correct answer was Matthew 27:34.

Wasn’t my statement the same as your answer? I don’t understand your anger when we both quoted Matthew in the same manner.

Matthew 27:34 explicitly said Jesus would not drink the wine, yet you argue Matthew say nothing about Jesus drinking the wine, in order for me to look like "wanting to look for conflicts". You are accusing me for being bias or dishonest.

originally posted by: Seede
When you examine the entire accounts you will find that different people see different happenings and also there were some who may have been witness and others who write from the witnesses and were not a witness.

Sure. Different person view things differently. A husband in mall would say he sees household tools. A wife in mall would say she sees groceries. They view things differently. Yet they are not disagreeing with each other. They are both right because we can conclude that they are both shopping at a mall.

The scenario at Jesus' crucifixion, however, is different. If 4 persons disagree with each others, then someone could be wrong or all of them could be wrong. Like the case of Jesus drinking the wine. Mark and Matthew said Jesus did not drink the wine, John said Jesus drink the wine. Then how do you resolve it? You cannot complement the entire story by taking some of view but ignore the other. Being ignorant does not make it right.

originally posted by: Seede
I based my accounts of understanding on the loved disciple being a male and also being John.

In my understanding, Nowhere, John ever identify himself as the "beloved disciple" or writing in third person. This is the writing of John.

1 John 2
My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you will not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate before the Father—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. 2He Himself is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours alone, but also for the sins of the whole world.

1 John 3
Behold what manner of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God. And that is what we are! The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know Him. 2Beloved, we are now children of God, and what we will be has not yet been revealed. We know that when Christ appears,a we will be like Him, for we will see Him as He is. 3And everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself, just as He is pure.

1 John 5
13 I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life. 14 This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. 15 And if we know that he hears us—whatever we ask—we know that we have what we asked of him.

See? Nowhere, John ever wrote himself as "beloved disciple"

originally posted by: Seede
Actually it is all theology and not verifiable and in that respect I do appreciate your opinions as well as my own. Lol ----------

Thank you for your kind reply