Comment 38
You refuse to answer the question. It is an easy question. I answered it. The answer was canonizing scripture is not solely based on historical accuracy, therefore, despite what canonization originally meant to me, the case that the Gospel of John be removed from the canon for the Lazarus account is rejected at this time but your book is correct, the Lazarus account is not found in the Synoptics.
For some reason, that question, by your refusal, is too advanced for you.
Just because you’re stumped does not obligate me to accept your denials; nor does it obligate me question my memory.
Your refusal to admit you accept the New Testament canon is your hangup. The whole world knows what the New Testament canon is.
Comment 39
Listening to this presentation and presenting a counter-argument is too advanced for you.
You have a doctorate degree and you cannon present a counter argument to someone who has a doctorate degree.
You have no counter-evidence.
You have no counter-argument to his interpretation of the evidence.
The presentation gives reason to paying a little bit more attention to early gnostic literature and pre-Christian gnostic literature. Salvation also needs a little bit more attention given what is presented.
You cannot present a counter-argument to the government hearings nor the evidence of the interview with the PhD even though everyone knows it affects people tied to Early Christianity.
But Brown categorically refused. His reasoning was curious: In his e-mail response to me, he asserted that “tests of the type you have talked about are very old hat” and that the current status of remote viewing “goes light years beyond that which your letter suggests.” But if Brown’s psychic powers are as advanced as he claims, shouldn’t he be able to pass an elementary test of these powers with flying colors?
Very old hat. Light years beyond. So dismissive. And here he has a chance to prove his powers.
I’ve often wondered whether people like this actually believe their claims or if they’re just in it for the bucks.
My natural suspicion is that they don’t. However, I suppose some could be deceiving themselves.
Make of it what you will this ** you do not have permission to see this link **I came across it while searching for information on Brown. It is written by a believer who must have had a falling out with him and wants Farsight Research, Inc. to be reported for tax fraud!
I used to think an RVer was retired grandparents parking their RV in the driveways of their grown kids’ homes.
Me, too!
This is amazing. Even an ardent believer in remote viewing, believes Courtney Brown needs more scientific controls:
Isn’t it just?
I find it utterly fascinating that people are able to cling to their deeply held beliefs despite clear indications that perhaps a little rethinking is needed. The classic example for me has always been the followers of ** you do not have permission to see this link **, many of whom still regarded him as the Messiah even though he’d converted to Islam.
The classic example for me has always been the followers of ** you do not have permission to see this link **, many of whom still regarded him as the Messiah even though he’d converted to Islam.
But you see, Zevi only did that to appease the infidels. In his heart he never abandoned the True Faith. 
I can demonstrate Remote Viewing.
I see this lush forest. At its center, shadowed and cool, there is a pool. Beside the pool rest the ** you do not have permission to see this link **. Some gently strum their lutes. Others, bedecked in sheerest silk, beckon enticingly with their flashing black eyes. They patiently wait, prepared to worship me like a god.
Wait, was that out loud?
Comment 15
Updated Point 5
5. The Gospel of John is a late, theologically constructed narrative. It introduces events absent from the Synoptics, applies Middle Platonism’s Logos incorrectly as “flesh,” imports the Shepherd-King motif from Dio Chrysostom and the Hermetica, and structurally mirrors the Dionysian drama of The Bacchae—the divine stranger unrecognized, the inaugural wine miracle at Cana, the staged revelation of “my hour,” the god offered as flesh and blood, and the death scene sealed by a final act of drinking wine. Historically, it is unreliable—inaccurate. Canonically it remains, but it does not belong in a historical-critical analysis of the Bible.
Steefen said
Comment 15
Updated Point 5
5. The Gospel of John is a late, theologically constructed narrative. It introduces events absent from the Synoptics, applies Middle Platonism’s Logos incorrectly as “flesh,” imports the Shepherd-King motif from Dio Chrysostom and the Hermetica, and structurally mirrors the Dionysian drama of The Bacchae—the divine stranger unrecognized, the inaugural wine miracle at Cana, the staged revelation of “my hour,” the god offered as flesh and blood, and the death scene sealed by a final act of drinking wine. Historically, it is unreliable—inaccurate. Canonically it remains, but it does not belong in a historical-critical analysis of the Bible.
The gospel of John is a theologically constructed narrative, aka “Gospel”, which appears to be later than the three theologically constructed narratives known as the synoptic gospels. It introduces events absent from the Synoptics, and a Passion chronology differing from Mark, which may reflect reliance on earlier sources separate from (and in addition to) the synoptics. It innovates the use of Middle Platonism’s Logos as a divine principle incarnated into a human being. It builds on and elaborates the Shepherd-King motif present in Mark, and as with the synoptic gospels, its structure mirrors classical dramas, in John’s case, the Dionysian drama of the Bacchea — … . As with the synoptic gospels, being a theologically constructed narrative, it is not reliable in the sense of the unattainable modern ideal of biography as an objective, 3rd person narration of actual events, nor even in the classical ideal of biography as a subjective and instructive 3rd person narration of actual events. As with the other three Canonical gospels, it must be used with particular care if engaged in historical-critical analysis of the Bible.
Bart Ehrman:
Is it not disturbing that, in the end, the unstoppable justice of God triumphs over his mercy?” The author then goes on to examine how the Christ of Revelation differs markedly from the Christ of the Gospels.
“In my view, the God of Revelation cannot be the true God.”
– BartEhrman.com, Kirkus review of Armageddon by Bart D. Ehrman
Steefen:
Bart, To what extent would you agree with the following?
Revelation is a first-century anti-imperial prophecy aimed at Rome and Judea, not a program for Western or American destiny.
Once Western Civilization evolved from Rome rather than standing against it, the symbolic architecture of Revelation ceased to apply.
Its modern use in Western churches serves liturgical, psychological, and political functions, but not prophetic ones.
Thank you.
The only update is that Bart has not yet responded to this question.
= = = =
Bart:
“In my view, the God of Revelation cannot be the true God.”
Steefen:
Why then is Revelation canonized in the Word of God for the People of God?
God of Revelation is not the True God.
Christ of Revelation differs from Christ of the Gospels.
The only update is that Bart has not yet responded to this question.
Steefen, since we’re talking about an unanswered question, would you be so kind as to respond to one I posed to you in an earlier post (Post 44)?
I’m also curious as to when you came to the conclusions you talk about in Post 9. The reason I ask is that a few days ago I was visiting old threads being visited by bots and came across one from 2015 in which you seem to be saying the same things. And only this morning, I searched and found ** you do not have permission to see this link **exchange from 2013.
1
Jesus is Decius Mundus who sacrificed himself for the world (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.4)
referencing Decius Mus, the son who sacrificed himself for victory, 295 BCE (History of Rome, Books 8-10 by Livy)
You, Bart, and everyone can read the sources CITED in Point #1.
It’s pretty straightforward. Decius sacrificed himself for a military victory for his army. Jesus sacrificed himself for a victory of the world–Jesus, the light of the world, etc.
It’s explained for a 5-year old.
Yes, Bart Ehman has seen point 1. He has not responded to me a better and alternative way to read the TF and the passage that follows it.
Even if you wouldn’t grade it A+ Superb, it deserves a grade of no less than A or A-.
If you want to go one level back. Blame Josephus. He opened the door to this interpretation.
2+2=4 There is no discussion to that statement. Neither you nor Bart can change that fact. What are you saying Decius is not a reference to Decius Mus, the father and Decius Mus, the son?
What UNANSWERED question? Check the cited sources. There is NO UNANSWERED QUESTION.
For God so loved THE WORLD (Mundus) that he gave [in sacrifice] his only begotten son.
The Latin word mundus primarily means “world” or “universe.”
To Dr. Courtney Brown, I want to add for support, Robert A. Monroe.
Robert A. Monroe was a pioneer in consciousness research and the founder of the Monroe Institute, a nonprofit organization dedicated to exploring human consciousness.
dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.qDC0z9va_EQFJZOwRyl34bgBAZaiQxOe3TpWXd9xMvp2w0tAnxKlNSsPuaMq9qMBQn6JxgIqznw_46RWbw1fP6cY4h-J-Elw419Jun5kFoI.8TbcMP0qhtNOQyPCeBdY-x6nwxAtzRJO2G4_hyo1dWQ&dib_tag=se&keywords=far+journeys+by+robert+monroe&qid=1764033163&sprefix=Far+Journeys+by+%2Caps%2C118&sr=8-1
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)