Who Was The Mysterious Exorcist?

Author: Stephen

Posts

Total: 29
Topic's author
#1
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
Less than half way through Luke's gospel there are two verses that appear to simply come out of nowhere that have nothing to do with the preceding  story lines in the chapter and neither the succeeding lines.   The two verses are sandwiched between _ an argument that had started among the disciples as to which of them would be the greatest, at  Luke 9: 46-48,    and the rejection of Jesus  from a Samaritan village. Luke 9: 51-55.

Luke: 49 “Master,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we tried to stop him, because he is not one of us.”
            50 “Do not stop him,” Jesus said, “for whoever is not against you is for you.”

Who was he?
Did Jesus -  god - son of god -   know who this  "someone" was?



#2
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
Once again, it is prudent to advise to stop cherry-picking verses. Read these passages in context, but also understand the history of these various writers. Of the Gospels writers, only Matthew andJohn are contemporaries who walked with Jesus, having personal experience with him. Both Mark and Luke write from second-hand - at best - knowledge, and yet can testify of the truth by their faith. In other words, one can, even separated from direct knowledge, perceive truth second-hand, through the use of faith so eloquently described by James in his epistle - the whole bloody thing, not one or two verses.

As to the dilemma of this "someone," that the apostles who were sent out to teach and heal by the authority and power given them by Jesus by direct ordination of each, may not have known who the other man was is of no consequence because he was still doing good work for a good purpose; something Jesus told them was to be appreciated. There's no mystery other than not knowng the man's name. Nor do we know the name of the man whose child, also unnamed, was healed of an unclean spirit by Jesus. Nor do we know the name of the contributors of the five loaves and two fish to feed the five thousand gathered to hear Jesus earlier in the chapter. Nor who gathered the twelve baskets of leftovers from that miraculous meal, nor the name of the person[s] who contributed the baskets. These details either were not important, or forgotten, or both, or neither. Not everything is a  hidden mystery, the discovery of which would solve all problems.
Topic's author
#3
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
Who is cherry picking?
 
It appears that the dumb theist cannot accept that there was another wonder worker walking around and doing as Jesus did and wants to brush this awkward anomaly under the carpet,   using the same lame excuse of  "contex".   When don't the theist ever not claim this bullshit when they are confronted with these little anomalies.

All the verses are there to read, so once again, let him claiming that these verses have been taken out of context simply put them into context?  Or stay off the thread.



#4
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
@fauxlaw
To be honest.

Shamans and Faith healers were and are nothing new.

It's not surprising that they get a mention in Tales from Arabia.
#5
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
The context desired was offered, and ignored. I mentioned others who were never identified by name who yet performed good works, so the offered notion that this particular unnamed healer was a singularity of Jesus ignoring who he was, or, if he knew him, did not mention him by name, is not a singular occurrence. Is that not contextual reference? Oh, by the way, the two men crucified on either side of Jesus, one of whom, by his faith, was told he would be with Jesus in paradise that very day, were named.... who were they, again?  And the angels who appeared to Mary at the tomb of Jesus, and declared that he was risen.... what were their names??? Your context is that every player on the biblical stage is not named. But, only a serious read of the entire performance from curtain rise to its fall in the final act will recognize that there are more players not named than named.
Topic's author
#6
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4
To be honest.

Shamans and Faith healers were and are nothing new.

It's not surprising that they get a mention in Tales from Arabia.

Indeed Vic.  And Luke: 49  shows clearly too that these characters were ten a penny and not the only  magicians on the block with super powers.  It is not mentioned where this particular super hero  acquired his super powers but as sure as there is shit in a goose he was clearly witnessed performing the same mighty works and "miraculous powers" as Jesus, but we do have to keep in mind the superstitious times that the poor and literate were living in.

There was also too the Great Simon we can read about in Acts 8:9-24. He was revered as the  " Great Power of God " by many of the Jews (except his rivals of course) but  to his opponents he was nothing but a lowlife "sorcerer". Well he would be wouldn't? The Great Simon, wasn't in with the in-crowd as Luke: 49 makes perfectly clear, one has to be    " one of us ".

He wasn't one of the in-crowd as spoken about in Luke: 49.  It's a similar to when the   priests of pharaoh were regarded as mere magicians but Moses tricks were miracles of god. Exodus 7:10-13.




Another example of a more famous character is where it is suggested too in the bible that John the Baptist was also a man who performed "signs and wonders" when Herod of all people -   who had never seen nor met Jesus before his trials, but had certainly  met John  the Baptist,  on hearing about Jesus and his miracles,  believed it to be John the Baptist come back from the dead to haunt him. 

And said unto his servants, This is John the Baptist; he is risen from the dead; and therefore mighty works do shew forth themselves in him."Matthew 14:2
 
and he said to his attendants, "This is John the Baptist; he has risen from the dead! That is why miraculous powers are at work in him."Matthew 14:2

So we see then that  John the baptists  was then yet  another "miracle worker".  I do at times have to wonder if there was a serious rivalry between John  the Baptist and Jesus?  They seemed to be in competition from before birth . But of course this wouldn't be nothing new for since the days of Adam close relatives and brothers in particular have always been rivals. It is a consistent  pattern throughout the whole of the bible and worthy of a thread all of its own.



#7
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@fauxlaw


.
FAUXLAW, the runaway from biblical axioms, and now the #1 Bible fool upon this forum, and the #1 record holder of running away from godly posts, and who has called Jesus a LIAR many times at the expense of committing the Unpardonable Sin,

Regarding the act of “Cherry Picking,” you have become what you are against because of your cherry picking  ALL , and I repeat, ALL of the inspired by Jesus posts to you as shown in the link below that you embarrassingly continue to RUN AWAY from!!!:

Therefore, you are the last member of this forum to ever bring up this topic of “cherry picking” again, understood runaway Bible stupid and ignorant fool?!  Remember, your presence within this forum has been shown by me and many others to be outright meaningless now and into the future because of your continued Bible stupidity and your continued runaway status from Jesus' inspired words, so why are you still here?


FAUXLAW, to save you further embarrassment that I and others easily give you, you would be more comfortable in being a member at the following "kids" religious forums:







#8
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
I am often reminded of a scene in Ayn Rand's "The Fontainhead" which features a momentary encounter between the protagonist, Howard Roark, an architect, and his nemesis, Ellsworth Toohey, a newspaper columnist. Toohey, in embarrassing pride, asks Roark, "What do you really think of me?" Roark replies, "I don't think of you."
#9
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@Stephen
@fauxlaw


.
FAUXLAW, the runaway from biblical axioms, and now the #1 Bible fool upon this forum, and the #1 record holder of running away from godly posts, and who has called Jesus a LIAR many times at the expense of committing the Unpardonable Sin,

As the membership can readily see, you have RUN AWAY from yet another post of mine #7 above by using  your Aphasia disorder and your child like non-sequitur to try and save further embarrassment for yourself.  I know, as if my post to you #43 shown in the link below wasn't embarrassing enough for you, now you add to your ungodly ever growing list of runaways from my godly posts that you can't even come close to addressing, therefore you define the true definition of a pseudo-christian.   https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5769-making-fun-of-religion?page=2&post_number=43


JESUS SAID:  "And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues;" (Mark 16:17).

Now, to the partial topic at hand within Steven's initial post, and you as an assumed Christian, how many demons have you removed from another of Jesus' creation because it is expected to do so saith Jesus the Christ?  Can you tell us the number thus far?   NOW, if you couldn't remove demons and such, or were to "sissy" to even try, therefore you do not have enough faith or believe in Jesus!  GET IT?  THE MEMBERSHIP WILL BE AWAITING A COGENT RESPONSE THIS TIME, AND NOT ANOTHER LITTLE BOY RUNAWAY FROM YOU!  BEGIN:



NEXT RUNAWAY BIBLE FOOL LIKE FAUXLAW THAT IN NO WAY CAN ANSWER JESUS' BIBLICAL AXIOMS WILL BE ...?


.



36 days later

#10
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@Stephen
Great question Stephen, do you know who it is? And why is it stuck here in such an interesting way? 


Topic's author
#11
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Timid8967
Great question Stephen, do you know who it is? And why is it stuck here in such an interesting way? 

What do you mean by  " stuck here in an interesting way"?   


do you know who it is?

No, but  I could have a good guess.

I was hoping that any of those students of ancient Greek and other Christians may be able to enlighten us all.  But as usual they have only managed to display their bible ignorance of the fact the there seems to have been another "miracle worker" on the block that wasn't one of them and these lovely tolerant disciples of Jesus didn't appear like it.  Luke 9: 51-55.
#12
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@Stephen
But as usual they have only managed to display their bible ignorance of the fact the there seems to have been another "miracle worker" on the block that wasn't one of them and these lovely tolerant disciples of Jesus didn't appear like it.  Luke 9: 51-55.
Whoever said that the disciples were lovely and tolerant? It looks to me like in this particular verse that the normal me v them attitude is being paraded. People looking for power. And the verses next seem to back up this notion which is why Jesus confronts it. 

I think the author - according to tradition is Luke, intentionally does not provide the name of the miracle worker because his or her name is irrelevant to the point he is making.  I admit it is a curiosity to figure out who it is. Yet it is impossible to discover and probably pointless to speculate. I think it is interesting that this so called miracle worker was using Jesus' name to drive out demons, not his own name or someone else's name. This suggests that he knew Jesus or had at least seen Jesus drive a demon out. Perhaps he was a Jewish pharisee, they too drove out demons in their own ways, and figured that Jesus was doing it better than he could.  Sometimes people think - "if it works I will try it". And if it works they will probably keep on doing it. 

Given the disciples response to this person doing what he is doing, it might be surmised that either he was someone who had been part of the group but had left under bad relations, or that they had no idea who he was.  

I wonder what Jesus would have done if the man had been driving out demons using someone else's name.  Or would Jesus has simply taken the view that driving out demons is a good thing and whoever does it is doing a good thing? Still, you are right - it would be good if someone who claims to be a scholar would address the point. But I thought you were a scholar?  You seem to know a lot. And have lots of very interesting discussions.  

Who are the people on this site who think they are scholars? Perhaps you could invite them join in the discussion? Although I see some people block others.  Perhaps you have been blocked by them or you have blocked them.  Sometimes it is necessary to block people I guess.  But given your response that no one has bothered, I presume you have not blocked anyone.  

I have not been here long enough to see to many people talk but on some other topics, some interesting discussions have taken place.  I appreciate your posts. 
Topic's author
#13
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Timid8967
But as usual they have only managed to display their bible ignorance of the fact the there seems to have been another "miracle worker" on the block that wasn't one of them and these lovely tolerant disciples of Jesus didn't appear like it.  Luke 9: 51-55.
Whoever said that the disciples were lovely and tolerant? It looks to me like in this particular verse that the normal me v them attitude is being paraded.

I was being sarcastic. And the New Testament to my mind is nothing more than a story of a power struggle between many factions in 1st century Palestine.


I think the author - according to tradition is Luke, intentionally does not provide the name of the miracle worker because his or her name is irrelevant to the point he is making. 

I agree. It is enough they they have mentioned that there was another "miracle worker" beside Jesus.

Yet it is impossible to discover and probably pointless to speculate.Yet it is impossible to discover and probably pointless to speculate. I think it is interesting that this so called miracle worker was using Jesus' name to drive out demons, not his own name or someone else's name. This suggests that he knew Jesus or had at least seen Jesus drive a demon out. Perhaps he was a Jewish pharisee, they too drove out demons in their own ways, and figured that Jesus was doing it better than he could.  Sometimes people think - "if it works I will try it". And if it works they will probably keep on doing it. 

I agree. It is pointless to speculate. That said, we do know that Jesus had rich and influential friends in high (and low) places. The scriptures make it clear that Jesus had "secret" disciples who were pharisee and in the council that he would "meet in secret". Although Jesus denies the fact at his trial.
So it could be that maybe it was a case that these disciples didn't know these other disciples because Jesus had kept the fact secret from them? and why Jesus didn't seem to bothered that they were performing miraculous tricks in his name. 



Given the disciples response to this person doing what he is doing, it might be surmised that either he was someone who had been part of the group but had left under bad relations, or that they had no idea who he was.  

Again, I believe John the baptist and Jesus were rivals. Depending how it is read, the meeting at the Jordan appears on the surface to have John being subservient to Jesus.  We have to look at that conversation closely to see that it could well have been a case of John being forced to baptise Jesus.
Ask yourself, why would John believe that it was Jesus that was supposed to be baptising him? 


Or would Jesus has simply taken the view that driving out demons is a good thing and whoever does it is doing a good thing?

But then that gives rise to the question of from where and when did the other "miracle worker" get his power . Who authorised him? Jesus didn't start performing his  so called "miracles" until after his baptism by John. And what a waste of a good miracle the first one was. Water into wine!!!? I ask you?


Who are the people on this site who think they are scholars? Perhaps you could invite them join in the discussion? Although I see some people block others.

It would be nice , yes.  But they can never hold it together once they have painted themselves into a sticky theological corner and made themselves to look silly and bible ignorant with the end result being abuse and lies and denials.  (Here is a good example of a Pastor and Chaplain that teaches the bible to students in universities showing his bible ignorance #8)

(A)  And  then they block you.  I was blocked by 3-4 members here yet still they would come to my threads simply to agitate and derail my threads. This went on for quite sometime before I retaliated and returned the gesture and blocked three all at the same time. 


  Perhaps you have been blocked by them or you have blocked them. 

See (A) above


Sometimes it is necessary to block people I guess.  But given your response that no one has bothered, 

??   It doesn't matter to me either way.   It simply leaves me  to post what I want without interference and agitation and any theist that I haven't blocked are welcome to comment; who is stopping any of the other believers here posting and responding to my threads? Are you suggesting that the three I have on block are the only theists here?

I appreciate your posts.

Nice.


#14
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@fauxlaw
To be fair.

Stephen does find an awful lot to "Cherry Pick".

Presumably, because there is an awful lot to "Cherry Pick".


Which, and also to be fair.....Is probably only to be expected......Given the haphazard nature of the texts concerned.
#15
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@zedvictor4
Agreed, but, even though the entire text does have some issued with which we contend, we should understand why those conditions exist, study all the. harder to see if we can extrude the truth from these verses, and, if still confounded after all that we can do by study and prayer for inspiration, go back to our knees and implore God for understanding. Such as Stephen are often too proud and impatient to be that humble. Humility begets patience, its lack begets pride.
#16
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@Stephen
I was being sarcastic. And the New Testament to my mind is nothing more than a story of a power struggle between many factions in 1st century Palestine.
Ok. 

I agree. It is pointless to speculate. That said, we do know that Jesus had rich and influential friends in high (and low) places. The scriptures make it clear that Jesus had "secret" disciples who were pharisee and in the council that he would "meet in secret". Although Jesus denies the fact at his trial.
So it could be that maybe it was a case that these disciples didn't know these other disciples because Jesus had kept the fact secret from them? and why Jesus didn't seem to bothered that they were performing miraculous tricks in his name. 
This is new to me.  Where do the Scriptures indicate Jesus had "secret disciples" and had secret meetings?   Where does Jesus deny it? 

Again, I believe John the baptist and Jesus were rivals. Depending how it is read, the meeting at the Jordan appears on the surface to have John being subservient to Jesus.  We have to look at that conversation closely to see that it could well have been a case of John being forced to baptise Jesus.
Ask yourself, why would John believe that it was Jesus that was supposed to be baptising him? 
That is an interesting perspective.  When I read the NT I don't get that they were rivals at all.   They are cousins aren't they? Possibly friends?  I ask myself: why would John believe Jesus should baptise John? That is a great question.  I am not sure how them being rivals or friends helps.  Do you think Jesus forced him or simply persuaded him? To me it looks like Jesus persuaded John to baptise him because it was part of the righteousness necessary. 

Or would Jesus has simply taken the view that driving out demons is a good thing and whoever does it is doing a good thing?

But then that gives rise to the question of from where and when did the other "miracle worker" get his power . Who authorised him? Jesus didn't start performing his  so called "miracles" until after his baptism by John. And what a waste of a good miracle the first one was. Water into wine!!!? I ask you?
I would take the view that god gives power to this miracle worker in the story.  Using Jesus' name was the means of exercising this power.  Why would he need to be authorised? Who needs a special authorisation to help people who need help? If he figured Jesus was powerful - using his name is simple.  Wow! why is wine a waste of a miracle? wine is a sign of blessing, isn't? In the OT,  the Israelites were supposed to obtain a land flowing with milk and wine.  Surely, a demonstration of wine making is a perfect picture of blessing. And a blessing as a first miracle is a pretty cool miracle.  But hey - it is not like miracles are real anyway? 

Who are the people on this site who think they are scholars? Perhaps you could invite them join in the discussion? Although I see some people block others.

It would be nice , yes.  But they can never hold it together once they have painted themselves into a sticky theological corner and made themselves to look silly and bible ignorant with the end result being abuse and lies and denials.  (Here is a good example of a Pastor and Chaplain that teaches the bible to students in universities showing his bible ignorance #8)

that pastor guy, tradesecrete or whatever,  where is he? He seems rather interesting.  But you kicked his butt, didn't you? interesting discussion about lot.  But he makes a bit of sense doesn't he? as you did too.    did he block you? Or did you block him?  anyway i looked him up and he has not been on this site for quite a while.  


Sometimes it is necessary to block people I guess.  But given your response that no one has bothered, 

??   It doesn't matter to me either way.   It simply leaves me  to post what I want without interference and agitation and any theist that I haven't blocked are welcome to comment; who is stopping any of the other believers here posting and responding to my threads? Are you suggesting that the three I have on block are the only theists here?
Who are the beleivers? There does not seem to be too many. 


I appreciate your posts.

Nice.
that's cool.  Keep up the good work. 

Topic's author
#17
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Timid8967
Where do the Scriptures indicate Jesus had "secret disciples" and had secret meetings?   

John 19:38 - "Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews".  And there was Nicodemus  who would only visit Jesus under the cover of darkness. Nicodemus’ Secret Conversation with Jesus: https://www.christianity.com/jesus/life-of-jesus/disciples/was-nicodemus-a-follower-of-christ.html



Where does Jesus deny it? 

John 18:20 " I have said nothing in secret".


That is an interesting perspective.  When I read the NT I don't get that they were rivals at all.   They are cousins aren't they? Possibly friends?
Well it appears on the surface that they are indeed cousins. But who fathered them both?
I think that if we are to go by biblical tradition, they were half brothers and more than likely fathered by the same person. And sibling rivalry is a theme that runs through the bible from beginning to end starting with Cain and Able.    In  actuality, this theme goes back even further if we are to look at ancient Mesopotamian literature and see that they record the first sibling rivalry of Enlil and Ninlil on earth, assumed to be myth of course but no more mythical than talking   "serpents " if we are to take it all literally.

To me it looks like Jesus persuaded John to baptise him....

How? What was said, or done or promised for John to appear to change his mind? Simply read verse: 

Matthew 3:13-17 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. 14 King James Bible  

"But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me"?

After all his years crying and wailing in the "wilderness" and preaching about "the one to come",  why would John suddenly believe that it was Jesus that should be baptising him?
The bible puts a lot of emphasis of John and his sole purpose for existing.    By all accounts he was the forerunner to the Christ, yet when the "messiah" eventually does make an appearance, John isn't having any of it?  And look at those last four words, they could just as well read in modern English   ' and you have the nerve to come to me '!!?

Some of the more modern bibles make it more clear: https://biblehub.com/matthew/3-14.htm , they have John say " why have you come to me"?


Why would he need to be authorised?

To do anything in the name of anyone else, one is usually authorised to do it by the authoriser.  I couldn't do or say anything in your name unless you gave me authorisation.



that pastor guy, tradesecrete or whatever,  where is he? He seems rather interesting.

Eye of the beholder, springs to mind.  I admired his tenacity, But he knows nothing of these scriptures and even admits to simply passing on what he has been told and taught to pass on. Here >> " I in most parts are merely passing on the teaching of what i have received. I do not have an agenda. I really don't".    #20

It is interesting that he adds that he has "no agenda" when it is a fact that all clergy including pastors and priest have been given  a "great commission".   I find it astounding that this Pastor and Chaplin Tradesecret had forgotten this from the mouth of Christ himself:

“Go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you.”  Amazing isn't it. That a Pastor/Chaplin can say he has "no agenda" when the bible clearly states that he most certainly has!?


did he block you? Or did you block him?  

No and No

 he has not been on this site for quite a while.

I hadn't noticed. And we are way of the subject matter. 


#18
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@Stephen
Where do the Scriptures indicate Jesus had "secret disciples" and had secret meetings?   

John 19:38 - "Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews".  And there was Nicodemus  who would only visit Jesus under the cover of darkness. Nicodemus’ Secret Conversation with Jesus: https://www.christianity.com/jesus/life-of-jesus/disciples/was-nicodemus-a-follower-of-christ.html
Thanks for that.  I think that is a big stretch.  There is no indication that the other disciples did not know Josephus was a disciple.  The best we can glean is that he (Josephus) kept it secret from the Jews.  To call him a secret disciple in a secret group is highly unlikely. There simply is no evidence. None whatsoever.  The same applies to Nicodemus.  I thought you had something solid.  He met Jesus at night in order for the Jews or the Pharisees not to find out - since they were trying to kill Jesus.  Nothing surprising about this. John who wrote the book obviously knew about both Nicodemus and Joseph.   


Where does Jesus deny it? 

John 18:20 " I have said nothing in secret".
Stephen, thanks again. Yet again, I think you are reading into this more than is said.  He is asked about his doctrine. Jesus explains that his doctrine is open to everyone. There is no denial of this by those questioning him. Jesus words, are directly about his doctrine, not about whether he has secret meetings.  I really hope you have more than this.  

That is an interesting perspective.  When I read the NT I don't get that they were rivals at all.   They are cousins aren't they? Possibly friends?
Well it appears on the surface that they are indeed cousins. But who fathered them both?
I think that if we are to go by biblical tradition, they were half brothers and more than likely fathered by the same person. And sibling rivalry is a theme that runs through the bible from beginning to end starting with Cain and Able.    In  actuality, this theme goes back even further if we are to look at ancient Mesopotamian literature and see that they record the first sibling rivalry of Enlil and Ninlil on earth, assumed to be myth of course but no more mythical than talking   "serpents " if we are to take it all literally.
Stephen, I think you are starting lose me here.  I don't believe the bible. Yet, even it says John's father was a Levite Priest and Jesus' father was the Holy Spirit.  Mary and Elizabeth are cousins.  I don't know what kind of cousins.  But enough for one to visit the other.  I agree that there is a significant theme in the bible about brotherly rivals.  But to apply this to Jesus and John is a very long bow.  And not a very convincing one. Jesus has brothers - James and Jude - why not make them the rival rather than inventing a connection between John and Jesus? 

To me it looks like Jesus persuaded John to baptise him....

How? What was said, or done or promised for John to appear to change his mind? Simply read verse: 

Matthew 3:13-17 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. 14 King James Bible  

"But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me"?

"Is there a reason why you omit to refer to Matthew 3:15. "let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness. Then John consented. "


After all his years crying and wailing in the "wilderness" and preaching about "the one to come",  why would John suddenly believe that it was Jesus that should be baptising him?
Perhaps because all of his crying and wailing in the wilderness was about the one to come. And now the one to come has appeared. That would be a reasonable reason for John to think that he should be baptised by Jesus.  I don't find that a difficult thing at all.  john had been talking about the one to come - baptising with the spirit (whatever that means) perhaps that is what he is talking about?  I cannot fathom why this should be too difficult to understand? 

The bible puts a lot of emphasis of John and his sole purpose for existing.    By all accounts he was the forerunner to the Christ, yet when the "messiah" eventually does make an appearance, John isn't having any of it?  And look at those last four words, they could just as well read in modern English   ' and you have the nerve to come to me '!!?
whatever - not sure why a particular interpretation in one translation should be given preference over another.  Especially since it does not add anything to what I have said above.   It seems to me - that you are wanting it be more than what it actually says.  And again - I say this - not giving a toss about whether the bible has any value for us today at all.  I don't particularly care whether they had a rivalry or not - but you have not persuaded me yet. Perhaps I am missing something.  But I think - occam's razor is a pretty good rule.  I don't think there is any particular need to make it more than it is.  

Why would he need to be authorised?

To do anything in the name of anyone else, one is usually authorised to do it by the authoriser.  I couldn't do or say anything in your name unless you gave me authorisation.
Well I suppose you have a point there.    But is that how things happened in that time and culture?  And even if it was, It still does not provide evidence that Jesus had a group of secret disciples.  It really only tells us that there is a man speaking in Jesus name to rid people of demons.  


that pastor guy, tradesecrete or whatever,  where is he? He seems rather interesting.

Eye of the beholder, springs to mind.  I admired his tenacity, But he knows nothing of these scriptures and even admits to simply passing on what he has been told and taught to pass on. Here >> " I in most parts are merely passing on the teaching of what i have received. I do not have an agenda. I really don't".    #20

It is interesting that he adds that he has "no agenda" when it is a fact that all clergy including pastors and priest have been given  a "great commission".   I find it astounding that this Pastor and Chaplin Tradesecret had forgotten this from the mouth of Christ himself:

“Go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you.”  Amazing isn't it. That a Pastor/Chaplin can say he has "no agenda" when the bible clearly states that he most certainly has!?
I don't really care - actually.  You brought this person into it.  




Topic's author
#19
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Timid8967
Where do the Scriptures indicate Jesus had "secret disciples" and had secret meetings?   

John 19:38 - "Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews".  And there was Nicodemus  who would only visit Jesus under the cover of darkness. Nicodemus’ Secret Conversation with Jesus: https://www.christianity.com/jesus/life-of-jesus/disciples/was-nicodemus-a-follower-of-christ.html
Thanks for that.  I think that is a big stretch. 
There is no indication that the other disciples did not know Josephus was a disciple. 

Firstly,  there is no indication that they did either or  Jesus had told them .  Remember these meeting were carried out in secret "for fear of the Jews".  
Secondly, I didn't say "Josephus"  I have clearly stated Joseph of Arimathea



The best we can glean is that he (Josephus) kept it secret from the Jews.

I said Joseph of Arimathea
I didn't say he was in a secret group I have said he was a secret disciple BECAUSE THE BIBLE SAYS SO! and probably unknown to the others because of his position as a Pharisee and a member of the council, he had to be kept secret that he/they was a supporters of Jesus .



There simply is no evidence. None whatsoever.  The same applies to Nicodemus.  I thought you had something solid.  He met Jesus at night in order for the Jews or the Pharisees not to find out - since they were trying to kill Jesus. 

Indeed and all done in secret. As the bible clearly states. You can deny all day long.  But the scriptures tell us that these things were done in secret and Jesus denied doing them in secret at his trial.


Where does Jesus deny it? 

John 18:20 " I have said nothing in secret".
Stephen, thanks again. Yet again, I think you are reading into this more than is said. 

 Nope. At his trial  he denied doing and saying anything in secret when the scriptures clearly state that he did.  Such as here ..John 7:10



Stephen, I think you are starting lose me here.  I don't believe the bible. 

Well I do. I just don't, believe it in the state that it has come down and has been taught to us. 



To me it looks like Jesus persuaded John to baptise him....

How? What was said, or done or promised for John to appear to change his mind? Simply read verse: 

Matthew 3:13-17 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. 14 King James Bible  

"But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me"?

"Is there a reason why you omit to refer to Matthew 3:15. "let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness. Then John consented. "

 Ok, you haven't said (1) Why John forbade him in the first instance. (2) What caused John to change his mind. (3) I haven't omitted anything. I posted MATHEW 3:13-17. So you can stop your veiled insinuations that I am being sly or devious. I don't need to be sly or devious or need to make shite up. I leave that kind of deviousness to the Pastors and the Priests.


After all his years crying and wailing in the "wilderness" and preaching about "the one to come",  why would John suddenly believe that it was Jesus that should be baptising him?
Perhaps because all of his crying and wailing in the wilderness was about the one to come. And now the one to come has appeared.
It was. I said it was.  And yet when the moment came what did John say?  He said ,  "you should be baptising me". 





The bible puts a lot of emphasis of John and his sole purpose for existing.    By all accounts he was the forerunner to the Christ, yet when the "messiah" eventually does make an appearance, John isn't having any of it?  And look at those last four words, they could just as well read in modern English   ' and you have the nerve to come to me '!!?
whatever - not sure why a particular interpretation in one translation should be given preference over another. 

Me neither. And I haven't given anything over another, you  are simply forgetting the fact that these are ALL bibles/ supposed holy religious text.......... not written by me.....
such as this version>> Amplified Bible
"But John tried to prevent Him vigorously protesting, saying, “It is I who need to be baptized by You, and do You come to me?”

Or this
But John tried to talk him out of it. “I am the one who needs to be baptized by you,” he said, “so why are you coming to me?”

Or this

But Yohannan had refused and said to him, “I need to be baptized by you, and you have come to me?

The point is that they ALL say John refused to baptise Jesus.



Why would he need to be authorised?
To do anything in the name of anyone else, one is usually authorised to do it by the authoriser.  I couldn't do or say anything in your name unless you gave me authorisation.
Well I suppose you have a point there.    But is that how things happened in that time and culture?  And even if it was, It still does not provide evidence that Jesus had a group of secret disciples.  It really only tells us that there is a man speaking in Jesus name to rid people of demons.  

He had secret disciples and the bible makes that clear . I don't care if you ignore the fact.   He had rich followers in all high places not to mention low ones too.


that pastor guy, tradesecrete or whatever,  where is he? He seems rather interesting.

Eye of the beholder, springs to mind.  I admired his tenacity, But he knows nothing of these scriptures and even admits to simply passing on what he has been told and taught to pass on. Here >> " I in most parts are merely passing on the teaching of what i have received. I do not have an agenda. I really don't".    #20

It is interesting that he adds that he has "no agenda" when it is a fact that all clergy including pastors and priest have been given  a "great commission".   I find it astounding that this Pastor and Chaplin Tradesecret had forgotten this from the mouth of Christ himself:

“Go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you.”  Amazing isn't it. That a Pastor/Chaplin can say he has "no agenda" when the bible clearly states that he most certainly has!?
I don't really care - actually.  You brought this person into it.  

I did as a perfect example of what I mean by bible ignorant twats such as he, that can't stop bragging about their credentials, qualifications and authority on the subject yet do not know a thing about the shite the preach , teach and charge universities to tutor their students on. 



You brought this person into it.  
And you questioned me about him. You didn't have to if you "didn't care-actually ", did you?

 



#20
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@Stephen
@Timid8967


Stephen,

Relative to the "context" of your thread, when in the hell is the Bible fool, and runaway of same, FAUXLAW going to use his alleged Greek knowledge of the scriptures to iron out your alleged "cherry picking" of the passages in question?  We have continually asked this minion of Satan FAUXLAW to show us his assumed Greek expertise in rewriting the scriptures that have been accepted "as they are" for 2000 plus, but he is nowhere to be found in this respect other than running away from our superior Biblical knowledge over his embarrassing grade-school knowledge of same!

At what point does FAUXLAW realize that his presence within this esteemed forum is all for naught? Remember the equally Bible fools Tradesecret and ethang5, where at least this ungodly duo knew when to bail out of this forum because the membership easily made them the Bible ignorant fools that they were. Therefore, FAUXLAW should learn from them and to save himself from further embarrassment not only in front of the membership, but in front of Jesus as well as He looks down upon him is total dismay (Hebrews 4:13).

.



Topic's author
#21
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Stephen,

Relative to the "context" of your thread, when in the hell is the Bible fool, and runaway of same, FAUXLAW going to use his alleged Greek knowledge of the scriptures to iron out your alleged "cherry picking" of the passages in question?

He won't be doing that anytime soon, Brother, I can promise you that. he's just full of bull****


 We have continually asked this minion of Satan FAUXLAW to show us his assumed Greek expertise in rewriting the scriptures that have been accepted "as they are" for 2000 plus, but he is nowhere to be found in this respect other than running away from our superior Biblical knowledge over his embarrassing grade-school knowledge of same!

 That's all he will ever do once he has painted himself into a theological corner, Brother

Remember the equally Bible fools Tradesecret and ethang5, where at least this ungodly duo knew when to bail out of this forum because the membership easily made them the Bible ignorant fools that they were.

I hadn't noticed Brother. Strange  that you do now mention it that they both disappeared around the same time after I called them out on sharing a password and accused one of posting in the name of the other.  Still, neither are missed by me. And where both of those bible ignorant tossers are concerned Matthew 22:29 says it all for me.
They both "are in error because neither do not know the Scriptures".

Therefore, FAUXLAW should learn from them and to save himself from further embarrassment not only in front of the membership, but in front of Jesus as well as He looks down upon him is total dismay (Hebrews 4:13).

He won't be doing that, Brother, he's too proud, too ignorant and far too arrogant.


#22
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@Stephen
Firstly,  there is no indication that they did either or  Jesus had told them .  Remember these meeting were carried out in secret "for fear of the Jews".  
Secondly, I didn't say "Josephus"  I have clearly stated Joseph of Arimathea
An argument from silence then. Ok.  Good for you.  The Chinese Christians today have secret meetings because of the communists plotting to arrest them and have them disappear.   This does not mean that they are secret disciples.  The Chinese Christians know who each other are.  I still think it is a long stretch on your part.  That Jesus would not let his closest disciples know about others makes no sense.   I meant Joseph not Josephus. My mistake in the spelling. 

I said Joseph of Arimathea
I didn't say he was in a secret group I have said he was a secret disciple BECAUSE THE BIBLE SAYS SO! and probably unknown to the others because of his position as a Pharisee and a member of the council, he had to be kept secret that he/they was a supporters of Jesus .
Being a secret disciple from the Jews is not the same as saying that he was secret from everyone else. In fact, saying he was secret from the Jews is distinguishing his part in relation to others.  Still, I don't know.  There does not seem to be any reason for people to be secret from everyone - unless Jesus did not trust everyone. The only person we see this was Judas, and even then, Judas does not really give information away until the end - and then he kills himself out of regret or shame. 

There simply is no evidence. None whatsoever.  The same applies to Nicodemus.  I thought you had something solid.  He met Jesus at night in order for the Jews or the Pharisees not to find out - since they were trying to kill Jesus. 

Indeed and all done in secret. As the bible clearly states. You can deny all day long.  But the scriptures tell us that these things were done in secret and Jesus denied doing them in secret at his trial.
I am not denying anything. I agreed that they met in secret with Jesus away from the Romans and the Jewish leaders.  This is quite different however from having secret groups or people that were not known within the group. It is highly unlikely based on any of the passages you have used to demonstrate the disciples did not know Joseph or Nicodemus.  




 Nope. At his trial  he denied doing and saying anything in secret when the scriptures clearly state that he did.  Such as here ..John 7:10
Ok. Well that string is stretching again. Stephen, it seems like all of this is part of some agenda of yours, not what the bible is saying.  If most readers do not come to the same conclusions that you are attempting to bring together on very little if almost no evidence, then perhaps you might let us on in your own secrets.  Jesus' doctrine is clear - it is what got him killed.  It might be nonsense - but it certainly was not secret.   In John 7:10, it is perfectly obvious why Jesus is going back to Jerusalem in secret. It is because the Jews were plotting to kill him and he did want to die, yet.  V.6 makes that very point.  


"Is there a reason why you omit to refer to Matthew 3:15. "let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness. Then John consented. "

 Ok, you haven't said (1) Why John forbade him in the first instance. (2) What caused John to change his mind. (3) I haven't omitted anything. I posted MATHEW 3:13-17. So you can stop your veiled insinuations that I am being sly or devious. I don't need to be sly or devious or need to make shite up. I leave that kind of deviousness to the Pastors and the Priests.
I don't need to. This is your story. I am just asking questions of you.  But as to 1, John figured Jesus was the messiah and should be baptised by him, 2, because John understood what Jesus meant by his reference to righteousness, and 3, with respect, you never referred to this at all in our discussions.  I am not accusing you of anything - I don't think you are being sly or devious. Where did that come from?  I just asked why you omitted to mention the one verse that answers your question.  I am interested in your views - I just want to understand how you get from a to z - and am asking you to fill in the dots.  Presently, there are far too many gaps in your position and it looks like to me anyway  - who admittedly does not know the NT very well - confusing.  



 

Topic's author
#23
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Timid8967
 I just asked why you omitted to mention the one verse that answers your question. 

 And I didn't omit anything. I put up the relevant chapter and verses MATHEW 3:13-17 which  INCLUDES the verse that you assume that I was "omitting". 


 Presently, there are far too many gaps in your position and it looks like to me anyway 

 There are far too many gaps in the whole scriptures to make any sense of them as they stand and as they are taught. 


 Nope. At his trial  he denied doing and saying anything in secret when the scriptures clearly state that he did.  Such as here ..John 7:10
Ok. Well that string is stretching again. 

Well that is only your opinion, but quoting scripture directly is not stretching string or anything else. Jesus denied speaking in secret when THE BIBLE say he did. Jesus denied doing anything in secret, when THE BIBLE says he did.  


I am not denying anything. I agreed that they met in secret with Jesus away from the Romans and the Jewish leaders.   
Then why accuse me of string stretching? make your mind up?


This is quite different however from having secret groups or people that were not known within the group.

 Opinion.



It is highly unlikely based on any of the passages you have used to demonstrate the disciples did not know Joseph or Nicodemus. 

Why?  We see only those two secret disciples apart and together . We don't read of them having any type of engagement with any one else apart from Jesus. And when I speak of disciples  it doesn't automatically follow that I speak only of his inner circle of 12.  And again, from the BIBLE we can se that Jesus at least  his doubts about Simon Peter  going so far as to call him "satan". 

  






#24
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
@Tim

Meeting in secret, in groups of greater than two, always strikes me as being a tad contradictory.

Though in terms of real accountability the Bible is inevitably, always going to be one big secret.
#25
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@Stephen
 I just asked why you omitted to mention the one verse that answers your question. 

 And I didn't omit anything. I put up the relevant chapter and verses MATHEW 3:13-17 which  INCLUDES the verse that you assume that I was "omitting". 
Ok. But where did you refer to "righteousness"?  Look it does not matter anyway.  That was the answer Jesus gave and which persuaded John.  

 Presently, there are far too many gaps in your position and it looks like to me anyway 

 There are far too many gaps in the whole scriptures to make any sense of them as they stand and as they are taught. 
This is my point.  So for you to speculate and infer that it must be how you understand it is where I start to roll my eyes.    I am quite happy for you to have any view you like - just don't foist it as though you are correct and everyone else is wrong.   

 Nope. At his trial  he denied doing and saying anything in secret when the scriptures clearly state that he did.  Such as here ..John 7:10
Ok. Well that string is stretching again. 

Well that is only your opinion, but quoting scripture directly is not stretching string or anything else. Jesus denied speaking in secret when THE BIBLE say he did. Jesus denied doing anything in secret, when THE BIBLE says he did.  
But Jesus did not deny he was running a secret group.  His doctrines were transparent and open. Again, not necessarily very believable teachings - but clear enough for the Jews and the Romans to put him to death.   Blasphemy against the Jews and conspiracy against the king of Rome seem like perfectly satisfactory doctrines to put him to death.  You can speculate about your secrets -  have fun with that. But you have not convinced me and I can't recall anyone else being persuaded either.  But as I said a moment ago, you are perfectly entitled to your opinions.  I just don't like being told what to believe by you or anyone. 

I am not denying anything. I agreed that they met in secret with Jesus away from the Romans and the Jewish leaders.   
Then why accuse me of string stretching? make your mind up?
You are string stretching.  You have not joined the dots. You admit to as such above.  Me, agreeing that two guys met secretly with Jesus does not equate with Jesus having secret disciples - such that none of his other disciples did not know. 

This is quite different however from having secret groups or people that were not known within the group.

 Opinion.
No, that is not an opinion. It is a valid conclusion based on logic.  It is an opinion to say it means what you say. And you are welcome to that opinion. But it is not fact.  I don't have a bias one way or the other.  For me it is a story book. But I am not going to read into - that which is not there.  Take me as old fashioned if you like. But since I don't have a beef one way or the other, I have no particular reason to disagree with you - save you have not been able to convince me persuasively.  But keep trying. 


It is highly unlikely based on any of the passages you have used to demonstrate the disciples did not know Joseph or Nicodemus. 

Why?  We see only those two secret disciples apart and together . We don't read of them having any type of engagement with any one else apart from Jesus. And when I speak of disciples  it doesn't automatically follow that I speak only of his inner circle of 12.  And again, from the BIBLE we can se that Jesus at least  his doubts about Simon Peter  going so far as to call him "satan". 

 You are relying on an argument from silence.  I don't recall Mary ever engaging with some of the 12 disciples - but so what? IT does not make them secret disciples.  And I really cannot see the point of your extending disciples from 12 to the rest. It is entirely possible that some of Jesus disciples did not know some of the others.  So what? It does not mean therefore that we can just read into the text that Jesus has secret disciples such that he kept them secret from everyone else.  That just does not make sense.  It does not fit with the narrative of the gospels.  How is Jesus calling Peter, Satan, having doubts?  Read the passage.  Jesus told Peter off. This is not having doubts. 

I am not a Christian and even I don't think that this is more than that.  Jesus had asked his disciples a question - Peter answered such that Jesus commends him significantly. And then Jesus reminds the disciples that he is going to die  and Peter rebukes him. Peter very firmly - indicates Peter's understanding of the messiah is flawed and of Satan. This does not show doubt. Jesus knew none of his disciples understood he had to die. Isn't that the point of the gospels.  So it can hardly be used as a argument that Jesus doubted Peter.  Look - honestly, believe whatever you want - just stop changing the narrative to suit yourself. 

Why are you so dogmatic about your position? Whatever is it that makes you - an atheist - content to spend so many hours on a religious forum pushing an alternative narrative about the bible? I know - whatever floats your boat.  Go for it.  I am just curious - that is all. And I guess it is none of my business. 

I have enjoyed our conversations - except when you are so dogmatic.  Yet, you present an intriguing thesis. I just wish it would be clearer. More defined. More easily agreeable with the bible.  

Topic's author
#26
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Timid8967
 
Ok. But where did you refer to "righteousness"?  Look it does not matter anyway.  That was the answer Jesus gave and which persuaded John.  

 And I am not convinced. And the question still remains of  why did even John believe that it was he that should be being anointed by Jesus in the first place. .

 Presently, there are far too many gaps in your position and it looks like to me anyway 

 There are far too many gaps in the whole scriptures to make any sense of them as they stand and as they are taught. 
This is my point.  So for you to speculate and infer that it must be how you understand it is where I start to roll my eyes. 

Roll away. This is what the scriptures lead me to believe. I haven't foisted anything on anyone and that includes you.. You came to this thread , I didn't drag you here kicking and screaming.

I am quite happy for you to have any view you like -

 Oh well now that is fkn generous of you. Should I thank you too?


just don't foist it as though you are correct and everyone else is wrong. 

"Foist"?  . Don't make me laugh. If anything has been foisted on anyone it is these unreliable and ambiguous scriptures  that have been foisted and forced onto mankind for millennia  by Pastors and Priests and it still is to a lesser extent. And who have I accused of being wrong, YOU?  I personally can't remember a single time when I have told anyone that they are wrong in their own beliefs.

 Nope. At his trial  he denied doing and saying anything in secret when the scriptures clearly state that he did.  Such as here ..John 7:10
Ok. Well that string is stretching again. 

Well that is only your opinion, but quoting scripture directly is not stretching string or anything else. Jesus denied speaking in secret when THE BIBLE say he did. Jesus denied doing anything in secret, when THE BIBLE says he did.  
But Jesus did not deny he was running a secret group.  His doctrines were transparent and open.

Nope. The bible states  that he taught Nicodemus "the mysteries"  in secret. And there is this >>He replied, "Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them." Matthew 13:11 



 I just don't like being told what to believe by you or anyone. 

 I haven't done that.. I am not asking or demanding that you believe anything I say. . Just leave the thread if you believe that is what I am doing or have done and then I won't be telling you OR ANYONE ELSE "what to believe " will I?  

I am not denying anything. I agreed that they met in secret with Jesus away from the Romans and the Jewish leaders.   
Then why accuse me of string stretching? make your mind up?
You are string stretching.  You have not joined the dots. You admit to as such above.  Me, agreeing that two guys met secretly with Jesus does not equate with Jesus having secret disciples - such that none of his other disciples did not know. 

Opinion.  I happen to believe that it does.  And I have said, he didn't only have the inner 12, the bible AGAIN records that he had many more. 



It is highly unlikely based on any of the passages you have used to demonstrate the disciples did not know Joseph or Nicodemus. 

Why?  We see only those two secret disciples apart and together . We don't read of them having any type of engagement with any one else apart from Jesus. And when I speak of disciples  it doesn't automatically follow that I speak only of his inner circle of 12.  And again, from the BIBLE we can se that Jesus at least  his doubts about Simon Peter  going so far as to call him "satan". 



Why are you so dogmatic about your position? Whatever is it that makes you - an atheist - content to spend so many hours on a religious forum pushing an alternative narrative about the bible?

Why should it even concern you what I do with MY OWN time.  Leave the thread if your not happy. Just go, I won't miss you.


except when you are so dogmatic


I don't believe I am. Most of my threads are all question based. I ask for answers and question what comes back if I am not happy. 

I just wish it would be clearer. More defined. More easily agreeable with the bible.  

 Well that is my point , I don't agree with the bible as it has come down and been taught to us. I have my opinions that the scriptures/ gospel authors are hiding a bigger story. I can't ever hope to prove anything, but it won't stop me putting what I consider what could be an alternative story to the one that we have had "FOISTED" onto us for millennia.... minus the so called "miracles".   But like I have said, you can always leave MY thread sunshine. I'm easy.


More easily agreeable with the bible.

 And why would you want my side to be "agreeable with the bible"?  Haven't you repeatedly made it clear on this thread and many others that you don't believe the bible and are nontheist.   Don't bother answering, I don't care.



#27
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@Stephen
Ok. But where did you refer to "righteousness"?  Look it does not matter anyway.  That was the answer Jesus gave and which persuaded John.  

 And I am not convinced. And the question still remains of  why did even John believe that it was he that should be being anointed by Jesus in the first place. .

 Presently, there are far too many gaps in your position and it looks like to me anyway 

 There are far too many gaps in the whole scriptures to make any sense of them as they stand and as they are taught. 
This is my point.  So for you to speculate and infer that it must be how you understand it is where I start to roll my eyes. 

Roll away. This is what the scriptures lead me to believe. I haven't foisted anything on anyone and that includes you.. You came to this thread , I didn't drag you here kicking and screaming.

I am quite happy for you to have any view you like -

 Oh well now that is fkn generous of you. Should I thank you too?


just don't foist it as though you are correct and everyone else is wrong. 

"Foist"?  . Don't make me laugh. If anything has been foisted on anyone it is these unreliable and ambiguous scriptures  that have been foisted and forced onto mankind for millennia  by Pastors and Priests and it still is to a lesser extent. And who have I accused of being wrong, YOU?  I personally can't remember a single time when I have told anyone that they are wrong in their own beliefs.

 Nope. At his trial  he denied doing and saying anything in secret when the scriptures clearly state that he did.  Such as here ..John 7:10
Ok. Well that string is stretching again. 

Well that is only your opinion, but quoting scripture directly is not stretching string or anything else. Jesus denied speaking in secret when THE BIBLE say he did. Jesus denied doing anything in secret, when THE BIBLE says he did.  
But Jesus did not deny he was running a secret group.  His doctrines were transparent and open.

Nope. The bible states  that he taught Nicodemus "the mysteries"  in secret. And there is this >>He replied, "Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them." Matthew 13:11 



 I just don't like being told what to believe by you or anyone. 

 I haven't done that.. I am not asking or demanding that you believe anything I say. . Just leave the thread if you believe that is what I am doing or have done and then I won't be telling you OR ANYONE ELSE "what to believe " will I?  

I am not denying anything. I agreed that they met in secret with Jesus away from the Romans and the Jewish leaders.   
Then why accuse me of string stretching? make your mind up?
You are string stretching.  You have not joined the dots. You admit to as such above.  Me, agreeing that two guys met secretly with Jesus does not equate with Jesus having secret disciples - such that none of his other disciples did not know. 

Opinion.  I happen to believe that it does.  And I have said, he didn't only have the inner 12, the bible AGAIN records that he had many more. 



It is highly unlikely based on any of the passages you have used to demonstrate the disciples did not know Joseph or Nicodemus. 

Why?  We see only those two secret disciples apart and together . We don't read of them having any type of engagement with any one else apart from Jesus. And when I speak of disciples  it doesn't automatically follow that I speak only of his inner circle of 12.  And again, from the BIBLE we can se that Jesus at least  his doubts about Simon Peter  going so far as to call him "satan". 



Why are you so dogmatic about your position? Whatever is it that makes you - an atheist - content to spend so many hours on a religious forum pushing an alternative narrative about the bible?

Why should it even concern you what I do with MY OWN time.  Leave the thread if your not happy. Just go, I won't miss you.


except when you are so dogmatic


I don't believe I am. Most of my threads are all question based. I ask for answers and question what comes back if I am not happy. 

I just wish it would be clearer. More defined. More easily agreeable with the bible.  

 Well that is my point , I don't agree with the bible as it has come down and been taught to us. I have my opinions that the scriptures/ gospel authors are hiding a bigger story. I can't ever hope to prove anything, but it won't stop me putting what I consider what could be an alternative story to the one that we have had "FOISTED" onto us for millennia.... minus the so called "miracles".   But like I have said, you can always leave MY thread sunshine. I'm easy.


More easily agreeable with the bible.

 And why would you want my side to be "agreeable with the bible"?  Haven't you repeatedly made it clear on this thread and many others that you don't believe the bible and are nontheist.   Don't bother answering, I don't care.

You really get tetchy when people don't agree with you don't you?   That's ok. It is funny that the plain word of Jesus' written in black and white don't convince you yet the speculation you make with a long bow - is enough for you to ask and answer all your questions.  At the end of the day, it doesn't matter whether you are convinced, what matters was that John the Baptist consented and that is how the story was written.  Why do you ask about John? Surely, the fact that figured Jesus was the messiah was enough for him to think he was unworthy to untie his shoelaces - answers the question? Occam's razor is the answer. Keep it Simple Stupid. It seems you reject this - the question is what secret knowledge do you have? 

I honestly don't know how the scriptures lead you to do anything. You only read the parts that support your preconceptions. Of course I came to this thread. You don't own it. And I can leave anytime I want to. Not just because you are getting tetchy.  When you disagree with me - and say things like "nope", that is you saying I am wrong and that you are right.  If that is not foisting, I don't know what else it is.  Matthew 13 is not talking about Nicodemus.  Jesus was talking to his disciples. And the things he was saying - was transparent for all to hear.  He told the parables for all to hear.  The point like much of religious speak is that it requires one to be pure in heart whatever that means.  The disciples understood not because they had secret information but because they had ears - spiritual ears.  Every hears the same information but not everyone listens. I think it is probably a little like when I read the bible - I see God as mean and nasty while Christians think God is all good.  I suspect it is a bit like that.  

I don't want your side to be agreeable to the bible any more than any other side.  I just don't think rewriting a narrative is conducive to persuading anyone of anything.  Trying to find secrets in the bible is silly.  It is a book. Written over a long period of time by lots of authors who seem to contradict themselves.  But rewriting it to adopt an entirely different position to how most read it - although novel, is counter intuitive.  Put your alternative story then.  

You will miss me.  You don't have that many people coming and responding to your posts.  There a few - but not so many that I won't be missed.   
Topic's author
#28
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Timid8967
You really get tetchy when people don't agree with you don't you?   

Not at all. And I don't care if you agree or not.



I don't want your side to be agreeable to the bible 

 Then why say this>> " . I just wish it would be clearer. More defined. More easily agreeable with the bible." #25 ? 


When you disagree with me - and say things like "nope",

 That's right.  I say it to anyone that tries to deny what is ACTUALLY written in the scriptures. Or have misquoted me. Like you did twice.  And yes you can come and go as you please but stop accusing ME of telling YOU  "what to believe". I don't give two fks you want to believe. I am just putting my thoughts and opinions forward on how I read these scriptures and you are protesting that I shouldn't... and a lot too, me thinks.

Jesus, it is a BIBLICAL fact, taught the "mysteries of the kingdom of heaven" in secret to some and not others. He did things in secret and he met people in secret. he then denied this at his trial<<<< these are bible facts, they are not verses invented by me to "fill in gaps". Take it or leave it. I don't care.



You will miss me. 

Nope, I won't. 

Anyway; 
 I am not anywhere nearer with the identity of who this other miracle worker was, but it must be remembered what it was that King Herod had to say after John the Baptist had his head removed:


After the death of John the Baptist King Herod  on hearing about these so called miraculous wonders being performed by Jesus (he had never met him personally at this point Luke 23:8) appears to be frightened out of his skin. Why?

Well because the bible states this: 

12 And they went out, and preached that men should repent.
13 And they cast out many devils, and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them.
14 And king Herod heard of him [Jesus]; (for his name was spread abroad:) and he said, That John the Baptist was risen from the dead, and therefore mighty works do shew forth themselves in him [Jesus].
15 Others said, That it is Elias. And others said, That it is a prophet, or as one of the prophets.
16 But when Herod heard thereof, he said, It is John, whom I beheaded: he is risen from the dead.

 There is not a single story in scripture that tells of John the Baptist performing the signs and wonders or  mighty works that were now being performed and "shewn"  by Jesus. Yet Herod would know or not if John was also a "miracle worker".  He was there.  And he had never spoken to Jesus but he had spent a lot of time speaking with and "protecting" John the Baptist, and we know this because THE BIBLE says so.

So Jesus was now performing  the same tricks as John the Baptist had once performed, but not before John had conveniently lost his head.

Topic's author
#29
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4


@Tim
Meeting in secret, in groups of greater than two, always strikes me as being a tad contradictory.

Though in terms of real accountability the Bible is inevitably, always going to be one big secret.

 The point  Vic is,  that  regardless of what was being taught in secret, the scriptures clearly show that Jesus did and said things in secret and then later denied doing and saying things in secret.

And I had already covered this nonsense on this thread of mine https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5681-how-does-jesus-expect-to-get-away-with-blatant-lies