To all you christian fundies out there: the john passages were written by JOHN there is no solid evidence?
606017
The Bible isn't a single document that some guy cranked out on parchment in his spare time. It is the record of God's revelation to mankind, written over a period of over a thousand years, accurately copied and passed on. It is a series of historical documents written by many authors.\n\nSimon Greenleaf, one of the greatest experts in evidence of all time, who doubted Christianity was true, was once challenged to examine the evidence for Jesus. After careful analysis he concluded:\n\n"The religion of Jesus Christ... not only solicits the grave attention of all, to whom its doctrines are presented, but it demands their cordial belief as a matter of vital concernment.  These are no ordinary claims; and it seems hardly possible for a rational being to regard them with even a subdued interest; much less to treat them with mere indifference and contempt."\n\nThe second reference below contains a powerful essay he wrote. If you're just blowing smoke you won't of course be interested. But if you dare to read a powerful statement that might change your mind, then kindly read it.
1177672
He....   darn it.  I thought I had the recipe sitting here but I seem to have lost it.\n\nGeez, what kind of question is that any way?\n\nLet's assume for a minute that you are asking about a just a mundane operation like walking from one town to another.  The inclusion of the word "exactly" in a question about a 2000 year old event makes one wonder what your epistemelogical standard is.   \n\nThe quick and the dirty of the situation is, I don't know.  I think it probably did happen though. I'm not a fundementalist, so therefore it's not necessary for the New Testament accounts, in this case the Gospel of John, to be completly inerrant for me to sign on.  They just have to be generally historically accurate, like any other set of historical documents from the time.\n\nSome people's a priori commitment to pure materialism aside, the story seems to be authentic to me.  It has specific details that a good old propaganda story probably wouldn't contain.  Such as Jesus's disagreement with his mother and his consequent quip at her.  And then he actuallly does what she suggested.  Propaganda created from whole cloth would probably contain less contraversy in it.  \n\nThe Gospel of John is actually the New Testament book that we have the earliest documentary evidence of.  Part of it was found in the Nag Hammadi (sp?) library in Egypt and has been dated to about 130 a.d.   That's pretty darn close to the events described compared to most ancient historical documents that are considered authoritative.
838284
Hmmm... maybe for the same reason there's no copy of the handwriting or signature of anybody who ever actually knew or saw Jesus?
412691
It is John, the author.  Since the gospel is written in the 3rd person, John cannot say "I".  Some scholars believe that John did not use his own name to remain humble.  \n\nJohn 20:2 is a good example of John calling himself "the diciple Jesus loved most"  See also, John 21:20.  \n\nThe commentary in my bible mentions that John is know as the apostle of love and that the was part of an "inner ciricle of three" witnessing the transfiguration, bring Jairus's daughter back to life and waiting in the Garden of Gethsemane, these events may have caused John to think he was loved best.  \n\nIf you are looking for a good bible to read, just for information I suggest The Message and Remix which is by Eugene Peterson, he translated the bible from its orginal Hebrew and Greek into the contempory language we use now.\n\nAlso, The Student Bible (New International Version), published by Zondervan Publishing House is good because it offers reading tips and comentary.  The references I cited in the answer were from this bible.\n\nI also enjoy "Where to Find it in the Bible"  It is "The Ultimate A to Z resource"  it is by Ken Anderson.
599842
Certainly that's possible, but why do you assume he was alive after having been crucified?  Why do you assume he was crucified at all, or that he even existed for that matter?\n\n...just because it's written in the Bible, a book clearly filled with outrageous myths and legends!?  \n\nIt isn't necessary to come up with complicated theories if you start with the presumption that the Bible is unreliable, and that we really don't know anything about Jesus as a result.
462578
The primary question, as written, demands an answer of "nothing." There is a considerable amount of written text attributed to Jesus' followers, though perhaps to no one who actually knew him. But I've yet to run across anything that claims Jesus' own authorship.
337962
Only what is needed to know regarding the 40 days is written. Even John complained that if all that Jesus said and did was written, all the books in the world could not hold it.
1051730
The proof is not just on paper, it's written on my heart.  When you experience Jesus, when you get to know Him personally, there is no question.  \n\nDo you think thousands of people around the world would give their lives just for something written on paper? The proof is in the heart my friend.
715374
I think that verse reveals a lot of modern evanglicalism to be out of step with Scripture. We have a very friendly, easy gospel preached in America where salvation is all up to us. John 6 teaches its not up to us at all in fact we contribute nothing to our own salvation including the will to believe. We are so totally depraved in our sin that we cannot even worship God unless he makes us worshippers. Very humbling.
375207
"There is actually quite a bit of written history from that time period that proves he did exist. But thanks for playing anyways."\n\nHAHAHAHAHAHA.... prove it. Show me one single piece of paper and I will believe you. The fact of the matter is, there was NO record of a historical jesus. In fact, St. Paul (who recorded the very first story of "Jesus") didnt mention anything about a virgin birth, miracles, or even this plane of exsistance. It was set in the same relm as Zeus, Hera, and other fictional characters. There are no writings from ANYONE who supposedly followed "jesus". If you know of any first hand evidence, I will gladly look at it and convert my faith if its true. So heres your big chance, all you good christians out there... In fact, Im gonna make it a new topic.
1181661
miracles, no.  Jesus, I believe several people (not just apostles) have written of him.  From what I understand though, few imply the possibility that he's the son of God.
454072
Joshua.  People like you crack me up.  Really!  You argue about biblical-specific entries and events as if they were factual and undeniable.  "written 4000 years ago"  On what?  Notebook paper?  Do you have some copies of those 4000 year old writings?  Do you have some secret text that nobody else has ever seen?  Are you on heroin or acid?  What's your trip?  None of the authors of the NT witnessed the alleged resurrection.  No matter how you stretch it, there are no actual accounts of it.  Most of the NT was created and written in 320AD under the direction of Constantine the Great, and its puirpose was NOT for historic accuracy.  Its purpose was to create a doctrine at the Council of Nicea that all factions of religious doctrine could agree upon and pull everyone together.  Why does it appear that there only a few people that post here regularly who actually know this?  Is your only source of "history" the Bible itself?  Are you crazy enough to use the Bible to prove the Bible?  Talk about illogic!\n\nThe original poster is correct -- if the notion of god portrayed in the bible is accurate, then there is no need for "free will" -- God already knows how things turn out.  He already knows who chooses free will and who doesn't choose free will, how they act, and who the sinners are and who goes to hell.  He already knows the choices people made in the past and what they'll make in the future.  He already knows how things will turn.  Already been there.  Outside of the time line?  Fine, state it however you wish.  It's still the same.  He's all knowing.  He knows how the "souls" will turn out. There's no need for a test on earth.\n\nThe question is not flawed at all.  Your assumption that the Bible is incontrovertible is flawed, and your statements of biblical myths as assertion are ridiculous.  It is one of hundreds of unprovable myths on this whole planet, full of fatal flaws, like the one this question raises.
1003481
that might have been contradicting to the ideas of some other author.  This way you can see how the Bible is tried to be manipulated by some shrewd persons. In that case where remains the authenticity of the Bible, where any body can modify any part of the Bible?
671238
BlackFedora wrote:\n"all of the new testament was written after Jesus' death"\n\n...and none of it by anybody who lived when jesus was alive.  It's all second-hand.  You can't prove it's credibility.
166327
Well, since the Bible is referenced in historical texts, more than any other book, and the story of Jesus is told in the Bible, I think that is considered historical proof. These stories are not new. The concept of Jesus' existance is harder for the modern day person to believe because we are 2000 years removed from that time. However, several texts, scrolls, letters, etc. were written soon after the death and resurection of Christ. Also, do not forget that zealous Jewish priests were persecuting Christians in order to try and get them to deny the message of Christ. This went on for a long time, and yet, the message has survived until now...2000 years later. Is it possible that it is all made up? I suppose there is no 100% evidence that it existed. But then, can you 100% proove that your great (time 5) grandfather existed? If you never met him and no one alive on this earth ever met him, how can you "proove" he existed. The simple fact is, you can't. But you believe because 1) you have faith. and 2) all the evidence presented supports that he did exist. All the evidence supports the existance of Christ. \n\nI suggest you pick up a copy of the book "The Case for Christ" by Lee Stroble. This presents the stories in a very "judicial" method. Giving the evidence and the opposing sides views and why the evidence supports the message of Christ.
576441
Hollywood intends to re-write history but one only needs to research for themselves the validity of the claims. For example the quality of the New Testament documents can be validated outside of the Bible through the research of Josephus Flavius, Tacitus, Caesar's Gallic Wars, Herodotus, and Thucydides. In fact there are 5366 documents discovered so far to validate that the Bible we have today is 99.5% as accurate as it was way back then. \n\nInternal evidence is pretty clear as well. 2 Peter 3:15-16 clearly states that the canon was already in the process of being collected for what we have today in the Bible. There were gnostic books but they were not accepted because they were written by Hellenistic writers that intended to change the original message of the Greek translation to imply that Jesus was not the Son of God. \n\nSee the sources below for addition research. \n\nSource(s):\n\n"Exploring the Da Vinci Code"\n"Breaking the Da Vinci Code"\n"Is the New Testament Documents Reliable?"\n"The Gospel Code"\n"Hidden Gospels - How the Search for Jesus Lost the Way"\n\nLast this is a personal favorite of mine...\n\n"New Evidence that Demands a Verdict" \n\ngo to any book store and pick them up.
268068
Nope,it's one of those passages that I disagree with.What you quoted was one of many unethical verses in the bible.I don't believe or follow everything I read.