The Story of the "certain" Witnesses?

Author: Stephen

Posts

Total: 166
Topic's author
#121
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,569
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret


You haven't demonstrated ANYWHERE that Simon the Leper or Simon the Caananite is one and the same person - let alone the same as Simon the father of Judas Iscariot.
I haven't got around to those Simon's yet. I have been bogged down by your persistent denials of what is actually written in the BIBLE, Tradesecret.



 I am able to infer the first connection but the second one - there is not even a scrap of data supporting - save and except perhaps they both have the same first name. 
"infer; you say. What caused you to "infer" Lazarus was a disciple when there is absolutely NO biblical evidence?  The bible states that the Jews wanted Lazarus dead. Why? There is no reason given in the Bible.




Rather than attempting to look within the circle of disciples,?

I think it's called process of illumination, my lawyer friend. And where a better place to start than with those closest to Jesus. We do know for a BIBLICAL fact that it was TWO of his disciples that followed him after the arrest. We do know for a BIBLICAL fact that at that point of the story at least one went into the courtyard where the trial was to take place and after the arrest. And we know for a BIBLICAL fact that he was betrayed by at least one of his close circle of twelve, don't we?  SO, why not another?
That is why I started with his own circle of twelve. 

I have said already, I will get around to these other Simons and those that wanted to be rid of him when I have to stop batting off your denials of what the BIBLE actually states and challenging your own speculation and guess work and your if's but's and maybe's. Just like I am having to do now, AGAIN!

Let's see.
You have denied actual disciples were in fact disciples. You have denied some disciples were secret disciples when they were in fact secret disciples. You have denied apostles were disciples and have invented a disciple in Lazarus.  And that is off the top of my head and without me having to go back over this thread.


You are simply casting spurious and unwarranted speculations and silliness into what is a clear story.  

Not quite unwarranted is it. I have to keep reminding you, don't I?  That there was trouble in the Jesus camp well before his arrest. Learn your bible, Tradsecret.

 

If you want to continue this discussion -clear up your mess and keep the posts shorter. 

This thread will continue with or without you. I didn't drag you here, Tradsecret. And I don't need your input.  In fact, you are useless as any sort of opponent simply because you haven't studied and do not know your brief. 


clear up your mess and keep the posts shorter. 

The mess has been caused by you continually bogging it down and me having to correct your BIBLCAL mistakes and things you continue to deny and speculate and guess about.  This will cause me to do a recap at some point because you are burying BIBLICAL facts and your own BIBLE ignorance under all of your word unnecessary spouting, slights, insults and mockery.
And my posts are long simply because you cause them to be long and detailed. So, the only cure for that is for you to make your responses clear, short and precise and without unnecessary word salad like a real Lawyer would do.

See that!?  I have had to waste time explaining to you why my posts are long and where "the mess" originated.

Keep on Mockin' , Tradsecret.





#122
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,426
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
So just to be perfectly clear. 

You have not got nothing. 

we are on page 5 of this topic of yours and so far - nothing. 

Now you can blame me if you like - as you surely will predictably do. 

But the fact is Stephen, you have got nothing. 

 We do know for a BIBLICAL fact that it was TWO of his disciples that followed him. We do know for a BIBLICAL fact that at that point of the story at least one went into the courtyard where the trial was to take place and after the arrest. And we know for a BIBLICAL fact that he was betrayed by at least one of his close circle of twelve, don't we?  SO, why not another?
That is why I started with his own circle of twelve. 

I have said already, I will get around to these other Simons and those that wanted to be rid of him when I have to stop batting off your denials of what the BIBLE actually states and challenging your own speculation and guess work and your if's but's and maybe's. Just like I am having to do now, AGAIN!

Let's see.
You have denied actual disciples were in fact disciples. You have denied some disciples were secret disciples when they were in fact secret disciples. You have denied apostles were disciples and have invented a disciple in Lazarus.  And that is off the top of my head and without me having to go back over this thread.

two disciples followed him. Ok I agree with that. But now let's see you link that to the witnesses. That is where you started - but so far you have suggested these two witnesses are Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea, Simon Peter, Judas, perhaps Judas' father Simon and perhaps Simon the Leper and Simon the Canannaite. And interestingly so far - not even a little baby link. 

whereas the most likely scenario is it was just a couple of guys of the street looking for some extra money by the pharisees to frame Jesus.  Nameless they are - and nameless they remain. Especially after such a dodgy and weak explanation as you give. 

Me, I don't have anything invested in this topic - hence why I don't particular care about the outcome - but you Stephen, it's the farm. and so far the farm is looking pretty shaky. 
Topic's author
#123
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,569
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
jesus died for our sins. 
Orrrr
Jesus was killed for us, 
Neither Deb. Jesus was killed because he'd been a very naughty boy.... in the eyes of the Romans.
Topic's author
#124
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,569
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
. 

Me, I don't have anything invested in this topic
 I can agree with that....to a point. You have had no credible input and your only contributions have been - among other things ...are your blatant denials of BIBLICAL facts.

Answer me this;


Why did the Jews want Lazarus dead?





#125
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,426
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Me, I don't have anything invested in this topic
 I can agree with that....to a point. You have had no credible input and your only contributions have been - among other things ...are your blatant denials of BIBLICAL facts.
On the contrary I have exposed you as a fraud and manipulator of the truth. You have not yet provided any evidence, any date to substantiate who the witnesses are. 

Not a scrap. 


Answer me this;


Why did the Jews want Lazarus dead?

I've answered that elsewhere - but it's totally irrelevant for this topic, isn't it Stephen?  but you need a distraction from the topic because I have exposed ONCE AGAIN as being incompetent and foolish. Making things up and speaking about things you have no idea about.   Have a good evening. 
Topic's author
#126
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,569
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
Answer me this Why did the Jews want Lazarus dead?


I've answered that elsewhere - but it's totally irrelevant for this topic, isn't it Stephen?


 No you haven't and now you are simply telling lies.And it is relevant to this topic. 
So I will put your non answer  down to another "I don't know, Stephen, because I do not know my BIBLE after all my years of "studying it, memorising it. lecturing on it and preaching it".


"You have not yet provided any evidence


 For what? You see again you have lost sight of what the purpose of this thread actually is. 


#127
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,426
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen


 No you haven't and now you are simply telling lies.And it is relevant to this topic.  
So I will put your non answer  down to another "I don't know, Stephen, because I do not know my BIBLE after all my years of "studying it, memorising it. lecturing on it and preaching it".
I didn't tell a lie. You didn't like my answer.  Not the same thing at all.  It's not relevant to the topic of who are the witnesses?  I raised Lazarus not as a witness but as potentially one of the disciples who followed Jesus after he was arrested.  Why people wanted him dead is irrelevant?  But I am sure you will now provide us why it is relevant. Waiting.  Ad hominem arguments are your forte are they not?   


"You have not yet provided any evidence

 For what? You see again you have lost sight of what the purpose of this thread actually is. 
I see you have lost site of the topic. You are the one who raised the question of "certain false witnesses" with the implication that they were two of Jesus' disciples. Have you forgotten?  Unless the purpose of the thread is simply to reveal how stupid you are.  In that case you are a very compelling prosecutor. 
Topic's author
#128
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,569
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
I raised Lazarus not as a witness but as potentially one of the disciples who followed Jesus after he was arrested. 

On what grounds?


Five pages and nothing.
Yes, and 4 of those pages I have had to spend teaching you what is actually written in the BIBLE!






Answer me this Why did the Jews want Lazarus dead?


I've answered that elsewhere - but it's totally irrelevant for this topic, isn't it Stephen?

  No you haven't and now you are simply telling lies.And it is relevant to this topic. So I will put your non answer  down to another "I don't know, Stephen, because I do not know my BIBLE after all my years of "studying it, memorising it. lecturing on it and preaching it".


I didn't tell a lie. You didn't like my answer.
 
Well lets see it again, for the sake of argument.


#129
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,426
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
The grounds that he was following Jesus. 

You haven't taught me anything sunshine.  My entire conversation has been one of drawing out what you believe - not what I believe.  

As for what I said previously, if you care, you go and look for it.  It's not my job to do your work for you. 


Topic's author
#130
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,569
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret



I raised Lazarus not as a witness but as potentially one of the disciples who followed Jesus after he was arrested. 

On what grounds?

The grounds that he was following Jesus. If you care, you go and look for it.  
So that is no grounds at all then, hence no evidence. And are now making an unconfirmed statement.  Not to mention totally avoiding a simple straightforward on why the Jews wanted Lazarus dead. And something you should know.


My entire conversation has been one of drawing out what you believe - not what I believe.  

 I have made my beliefs more than clear and on many occasions on this forum. And I know already your beliefs.


As for what I said previously, if you care, you go and look for it.  

You just may regret saying that,  Tradsecret. You keep setting your rules but are always the first you break them. It makes me quite happy every time you open the door for me.
Goose -gander.


It's not my job to do your work for you. 

You just may regret saying that, too. And it is I that has had to persistently keep correcting your bible mistakes and ignorance, as shown on this thread alone.
And you should have cross checked your list of the 12 disciples too. << that will be something else that will be coming come back to bite you.





#131
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,426
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Stephen, 

you have made it clear you can't learn anything from me.  So why would I bother? 

There is as much ground for it being Lazarus as anyone you have suggested.  

What I know is irrelevant. 

You have your beliefs as do I.  The difference is others come to the same conclusions as I do since it a reason belief. You on the hand sit alone with no one to support your views - since your views are unreasonable, illogical and no one can see your logic.

Of course I set the rules about me.  You don't get to set my rules. what sort of arrogant Pratt are you to think that you can set my rules?  If you are interested in what I wrote - you go and find it. It is not for me to do your work.  

I regret lots of things. I at least have the integrity and honesty to own it. 



Topic's author
#132
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,569
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
There is as much ground for it being Lazarus as anyone you have suggested.  

So you keep saying. 


 You don't get to set my rules. 

 I haven't set any rules though, have I? Up to this point I have simply stayed with the BIBLE narrative, as vague and ambiguous as they are.

And no one on this thread has issued a single slight, insult or ad hominem against you, that will be all you, Tradesecret.


#133
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,426
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
No, you haven't thrown any barbs or insults.  dripping sarcasm.  

and as for following the biblical narrative - well - just in the way you and you alone see it. 

As has been pointed out now on many occasions, no one else arrives at the same conclusions as you do. 

You just make stuff up.   


Topic's author
#134
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,569
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
There is as much ground for it being Lazarus as anyone you have suggested.  

I don't believe I have suggested anyone yet. Process of elimination, Tradesecret . But you have suggested Lazarus as suspect, and without explanation or reason. Which entitles me to do exactly the same as you. A door you so graciously opened for me and something a real lawyer good would never do.

and as for following the biblical narrative - well - just in the way you and you alone see it. 

Exactly. Free from the constraints of the forced official narrative and dogma.
I have theory and nothing provable as I have admitted many times before on this forum.  In fact, when it comes down to it, I can't even prove Jesus existed, Tradesecret, and neither can you.
#135
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,426
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Do you think baiting me more is going to get your desired outcome? Obviously or you wouldn't keep doing it. 

I don't think it is relevant for the biblical narrative to know who the witnesses were - based on the fact that they remained unnamed. 

I suggested that one of the disciples who followed was Lazarus. The reason I suggested that is most commentators suggest it was the disciple Jesus loved - the author of the gospel.  That is the most common conjecture by most commentators.  My reasoning is - based on the view that tend to think that the gospel was written by Lazarus.  I am not going into that now. But I think there are somewhat compelling reasons to think that. Having said that - though - it is not a deal breaker. It helps in understanding a couple of key incidents in the gospel for me. 

People in discussion often raise points in order to come back to later.  Do lawyers do that? I would suggest that a good cross-examiner would circle back to particular points in their examination when necessary.  

You have many constraints in your narrative.  One is - your secret gospel of Mark.  I don't have to prove Jesus existed.  That has been done by the historians. 


Topic's author
#136
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,569
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
Do you think baiting me.

Not at all , Tradsecret.  You came onto this thread of your own free will. I certainly didn't compel you.


 That is the most common conjecture by most commentators...

 Nice.

It helps in understanding a couple of key incidents in the gospel for me. 

That will be those same "most commentators" helping you understand these "key [biblical] incidents" I can take it. The same bible you don't have any issues with#85  that you say is "crystal clear" and "unambiguous"#55? And tell us that "The authors in the bible are pretty clear about what they want to communicate.#62  I see. There can't be much that "most commentators" can teach you then. One would have to ask why bother with them at all.


"The gospel writers are not in a habit of hiding things from their readers#95
Not to my knowledge. The gospel writers are as bad or as good as Jesus himself when it came to hiding things and keeping secrets, even those from his hand picked inner circle of 12 disciples! There are times that his inner 12 didn't have the faintest clue what was going on. 

That is maybe why you need to look at and study extra biblical and theological material to fathom these "key incidents" that you say you need help understanding? I can understand that, although, that does clearly contradict everything you have clearly stated in the past concerning your faith in the reliability of the bible.. Where as I have no faith whatsoever in these scriptures as the have come down to us and been preached to us over the millennia. I have said many times that I believe there to be another story beneath the surface, Tradesecret. And you don't have to take a blind bit of notice of what I have to say, do you?

#137
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,426
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Me coming onto this site on my own free will doesn't negate that the fact that you were baiting me.  The two are not mutually exclusive. Me responding, is a choice I own.   

Most commentators have concluded that John wrote the gospel.    Of course many do that out of the fact that others have done their homework and provided arguments for and against why it was John.  I think many of those reasons are valid as well. I don't dismiss out of hand that it may well have been John.  But there are plenty of scholars who also hold that Lazarus wrote it.  Indeed there are plenty of others who have different views.  

I don't consider the fact that these variances within scholarship are problematic.  If people have a view and they can demonstrate how they arrived at that conclusion on a rational basis then it shows it is not just a random thought by one or two people.  The bible as a whole- is pretty unambiguous. Of course there are difficult texts - take 1 Corinthians 15:29 as an example. There are over 300 views as to what this is talking about. Given your novel ideas as to death and resurrection., I suspect your views would be interesting to hear as well. 

But for me to say the bible is crystal clear and written to be communicated does not mean that there are not difficult places that require more work or that may never be explained.   I have indicated on numerous occasions that such hard and difficult texts ought be explained first by going to the easier texts where there is no misunderstanding and then go back to the harder ones. That of course is a normal rule of grammar and interpretation.  

The bible is not a code book. It doesn't really have secret messages.  You don't need to have special knowledge to understand it. Yet, much is spiritually discerned. 

And what I mean by discerned is not about acquiring knowledge - but the difference between knowledge and wisdom.  If someone believes the Bible is the Word of God then they will tend to harmonise the scriptures and the facts within them as opposed to someone who doesn't believe the Bible to be the Word of God. We see that all the time on this site and on others around the world.  If you believe the bible to be infallible and inerrant - then your tendency is towards understanding it from that perspective. If you don't then you don't have to be concerned with that, rather seeing what might not be contradictions as contradictions etc. 

You don't believe in God,. You don't believe the bible to inerrant etc. But you do hold the bible as something unique which is attempting to tell us secrets. Perhaps you have picked up on Isaac Newton's curious vibe that the bible has secrets within it. We know you were looking at the secret gospel of mark - and like to dabble in reading the gnostic books - all which require a "secret knowledge" to understand the bible and other books. 

This is the thing.  Knowing that some people hold to a view is not the same as saying that you agree to view. I appreciate that some people in this world are gnostics and that they think the bible is a secret code book. It doesn't make them right - it does make them a little bit crazy and superstitious. the reason they haven't hit mainstream is mostly not because of the opposition from the church, but because they haven't been able to persuade others. They tend to hand around in websites trying to peddle their positions.  And sometimes they get a few hanger-on.  

Is that you?  Who knows. 
Topic's author
#138
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,569
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
It's nice when you spout far too much than is required, it highlights all of your own contradictions that then cause you to backpeddle.

Example:


Tradesecret wrote: But for me to say the bible is crystal clear and written to be communicated does not mean that there are not difficult places that require more work or that may never be explained. [.......]  such hard and difficult texts [.....]  there are difficult texts#137

Tradsecret also wrote:

The same bible you don't have any issues with#85  that you say is "crystal clear" and "unambiguous"#55? And tell us that "The authors in the bible are pretty clear about what they want to communicate.#62
There are more of the same but need not be produced here.


We know you were looking at the secret gospel of mark -

Yes, I have read that. Among many hundreds of theological books and papers including the BIBLE itself..
The so-called Secret Mark for instance, has Lazarus well and truly alive in the "tomb" and was in the process of undergoing only a symbolic "raising from the dead",   as I had always suspect and before I had ever read it.

Most commentators have concluded that John wrote the gospel.

So? And there are many commentators that believe Marks gospel was the first and that Luke and Matthew in particular used it as their primary source. Make of that what you will.
I am simply telling you AGAIN, that none of this has had any baring or influence on the fact that I believe there to be another story below the surface of the gospels as they have come down and have been preached to us for millennia. 


But you do hold the bible as something unique which is attempting to tell us secrets.

I take the bible to be nothing more than any other ancient works. It is not unique. It is one book on religion among many other religious books.  Is it a religious book or not?
And I don't believe it is "trying to tell us secrets" either. On the contrary, I believe there to be another story that the gospel writers seem to be at pains to keep hidden. This why they hardly agree on most things. Even the so-called synoptics are not synoptic.
And isn't that Jesus himself is always speaking of the secret " mysteries" and is forever telling others to keep things "secret" and had "secret" disciples. Maybe it's a case of those other "secret" gospels are actually telling the secrets that the bible is at pains to keep hidden? And you and the church don't like it so call them all heresy and heretics.

And you still haven't told us why it was that the Jews wanted Lazarus dead? Do you have an explanation from the BIBLE!
#139
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,426
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
You do like to talk nonsense. Just because I don't give you complete answers doesn't mean that when I add to what I previously that I am backpedaling. In fact that sort of response by you is just silly.  Imagine if we did with you? 

You use the secret book of Mark as your little go to book.  don't be so modest. 

there are many views on the book of Mark. One as you rightly say is that it came before  Matthew and Luke - and that they used it as a source document. Along with another one perhaps known as Q.   You can believe anything you want to Stevie - and I am sure that nothing anyone says on this site is going to change you. You see yourself as some kind of guru who impart your secret knowledge. So go Stevie Go. 

I wonder if you actually read what you write.  

On other hand you say you don't believe the bible is telling secrets, yet it is hiding a story.  And even Jesus according to you is hiding secrets.  LOL! 

But that's ok Stephen, go for it. 

I still find it intriguing that you expect the Synoptics to tell exactly the same story.  And that John would simply provide the same stories and never add any other stories. Whenever you make a comment like that it just fills me with a smile. And you don't even know why. 

Each of the four gospels are telling the same story, Not exactly of course. But they are all presenting it quite different ways. Sometimes they use the same source and sometimes they don't. The question is not whether they agree perfectly but whether they actually contradict each other.  Witnesses never tell exactly the same story - or else they are seen to be scheming - a conspiracy.  When they give different aspects - and sometimes different scenarios - it adds to the picture - but also provides the vibe of authencity.  

the gospels are also writing to different audiences. True - all of the gospels are in one book now. But that is not how it originally was. I know you think this is irrelevant. But most commentators if not all - disagree with you. 

How one gospel writer is going to explain the story to Gentiles is going to be very different to Jews. And how a gospel writer is going to explain things - to both at the same time is going to be different to how one might write to separate. Still, I suspect that will go through to the keeper as well.   

There are reasons why some books made it to the NT and why many didn't.  As an atheist your ideas about this could not possibly include the supernatural or that God determined what these would be.  It therefore must have been a man made decision for one or more out of several possible motivations.  Power perhaps - keeping a secret perhaps. Money and wealth perhaps.  Yes, but nothing good. 

For the Christian, for the ones who believe in God and the supernatural, there are other more likely scenarios and purposes.  And even some who believe in the supernatural may well have purposes for why some make it and some did not.  Many might suggest that the Catholic Church kept only those which fit in line with making it powerful. Perhaps to say - we put the bible together. We therefore made it and are authoritative over it. 

Of course Protestants have a different view. As others do as well. 

None of these ideas are new of course. They have been debated many times by many different people. And depending upon the skill and the information that some have - sometimes the conclusions are very different. 

We await o Stephen, grandmaster of ceremonies of your fountain of wisdom to the truth - the secret knowledge that you have . 
Topic's author
#140
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,569
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
You use the secret book of Mark as your little go to book.  don't be so modest. 

Not at all. Have you ever seen Secret Mark? Because know you haven't read it?  It is nothing more than a few incomplete pages and there is nothing to be garnered from it in the way of information never mind good reliable information, tradescret.

I have told you. Where this forum is concerned, I have only questioned the bible, and my information comes directly from the BIBLE. I do not need to reach for extrabiblical works or other "commentators" to show how unreliable and ambiguous these stories are. This is not to mention it's outright lies.  You just do not know your subject enough to realise this.

TRADESECRET WROTE: Each of the four gospels are telling the same story, Not exactly of course. But they are all presenting it quite different ways. Sometimes they use the same source and sometimes they don't. The question is not whether they agree perfectly but whether they actually contradict each other.  Witnesses never tell exactly the same story - or else they are seen to be scheming - a conspiracy.  When they give different aspects - and sometimes different scenarios - it adds to the picture - but also provides the vibe of authencity.  #139
That's what I have been waiting for.  So let's not forget who said that, Tradesecret.


And you still haven't told us why it was that the Jews wanted Lazarus dead? Do you have an explanation from the BIBLE!



#141
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,426
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Not at all. Have you ever seen Secret Mark? Because know you haven't read it?  It is nothing more than a few incomplete pages and there is nothing to be garnered from it in the way of information never mind good reliable information, tradescret.

I have told you. Where this forum is concerned, I have only questioned the bible, and my information comes directly from the BIBLE. I do not need to reach for extrabiblical works or other "commentators" to show how unreliable and ambiguous these stories are. This is not to mention it's outright lies.  You just do not know your subject enough to realise this.
Have I ever said I have read the Secret book of Mark?  I know you think it is brilliant.  

I know that you don't know your subject.   And you prove that over and over again. 

Stop asking me about Lazerus. I have told you I have answered it.  You said at that time it was not answer. I told you. and Let me repeat it for your sake again. You didn't like the answer. Because it contradicts your pet theory of a secret society.  


Topic's author
#142
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,569
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
Not at all. Have you ever seen Secret Mark? Because know you haven't read it?  It is nothing more than a few incomplete pages and there is nothing to be garnered from it in the way of information never mind good reliable information, tradescret.

I have told you. Where this forum is concerned, I have only questioned the bible, and my information comes directly from the BIBLE. I do not need to reach for extrabiblical works or other "commentators" to show how unreliable and ambiguous these stories are. This is not to mention it's outright lies.  You just do not know your subject enough to realise this.
Have I ever said I have read the Secret book of Mark?  I know you think it is brilliant.

I have said:
Secret Mark is nothing more than a few incomplete pages and there is nothing to be garnered from it in the way of information never mind good reliable information. So it is hardly "brilliant".


 Stop asking me about Lazerus.

I have simply asked you why the Jews wanted Lazarus dead? And is all you have said is that "Lazarus is irrelevant" here twice> #127 If you don't know, just say so.

You then went on - after being pressed numerous times - to tell me why it was that you suggested Lazarus as one of those disciples following.

Your reply was:
Tradesecret wrote:  "The reason I suggested that [it was likely to have been Lazarus] is most commentators suggest it was the disciple Jesus loved - the author of the gospel.  That is the most common conjecture by most commentators".  #135

But you can see the big problem with that can't you, surely!?
Would you like me to tell you, Tradsecret?









#143
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,426
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Stephen, as always you never do your homework. 

I know you have everything I have ever written on this site - so dump it into Word, do a search and push return. 

You will find it. 

And if you can't either you are useless at searching - or you are intentionally not providing it.  

And then the question will be - why not?


Topic's author
#144
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,569
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
Stephen, as always you never do your homework. 

I do my homework pretty well , Tradesecret. So keeping in mind that we are talking Lazarus and those two disciples following Jesus to the place of the trial, and I need look no further than this thread to show another great clanger of your own . So lets take you statements concerning Lazarus in its chronological order on this thread.

It is you and only you that introduces Lazarus to us here:

Tradsecret wrote: "My personal view is that it was more likely Lazarus who both wrote the gospel and who was this character. He by the way was a disciple but not an apostle".#111

I then have to correct you by telling you this:


 Tradesecret wrote: My personal view is that it was more likely Lazarus who both wrote the gospel and who was this character.He by the way was a disciple but not an apostle.

Stephen wrote; What makes you say he was a disciple? Does the BIBLE say he was a Disciple? Well NO it doesn't does it!  YOU ARE WRONG AGAIN! The BIBLE clearly states that he was only a "friend".John 11#114

I then asked you what made you suggest Lazarus may have been one of the two following Jesus to the trial. #121
 
Many posts later and after much feet dragging and pressure from me  asking you on what grounds you suggest Lazarus#128,  you finally come up with this :

Tradesecret wrote: "I suggested that one of the disciples who followed was Lazarus. The reason I suggested that is most commentators suggest it was the disciple Jesus loved - the author of the gospel.  That is the most common conjecture by most commentators".#135

 So above you say you got your information that led you to your conclusion via other  and most "commentators and their own conjecture"

 I have since asked you can you not see the problem  you have with that? ; #142

Well it obvious you can't so I will show you ONCE AGIN.   The problem that you have with your own comments and those of "most common conjecture by most commentators" is that nowhere in the BIBLE does it even suggest that Lazarus was a disciple. Something I had told you as far back as post #114<<< see that?  You had forgotten what I clearly had pointed out to you.

 The BIBLE speaks of two DISCIPLES following Jesus. One is named and he is identified as being Simon Peter. The other isn't named at all. YOU suggested Lazarus who is never named as as DISCIPLE and YOU continued to suggest it was Lazarus because of the "conjecture of most commentators".

AND THAT is the problem you have, Tradesecret.
 
There is only one way that you and the  conjecture of these commentators just might be be right. Do you know how  that can be ? Tradesecret?  





#145
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,426
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
A disciple is someone who followed Jesus.  They don't have to be called a disciple. 

That is not conjecture. You already established it weeks ago. 
Topic's author
#146
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,569
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
A disciple is someone who followed Jesus.  They don't have to be called a disciple. 

That is not conjecture. You already established it weeks ago. 

So are you now saying that Lazarus was in fact a disciple, Tradesecret?

#147
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,426
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
I never said otherwise. He was not an apostle. But he is a disciple using even the terminology you used.  

I said that disciples are those that follow Jesus and were taught by him and obeyed his commands. Not all of them are called disciples by name but they are still the same. Also many people followed Jesus, who were not disciples.   They were following the hype and the fame of the man - hoping for a miracle for instance. 

But not everyone was an apostle. There were 12.  And later Paul.  Judas died and was replaced. We don't hear of any further replacements. Only Paul who was added as an apostle to the gentiles.   Of course there were also another group of people who were known as apostles - but not of the 12. Probably since the term means "sent ones", they were evangelists or church planters or missionaries. 

Lazarus I think is the disciple whom Jesus loved. Most commentators hold a different view. They might be right.    I'm probably wrong. Yet when I read John - it is Lazarus whom Jesus is said to have loved.  It doesn't really say that in the same way about John. Unless of course the author of the book is John.  It certainly adds colour to the story towards the end of John where Peter is talking to Jesus - about his own death and perhaps the death of the disciple whom Jesus loved. 

Obviously, Peter knew that Lazarus had died already and been raised from the dead.  Peter wondered whether Lazarus might die again or live for ever. Jesus remarks are quite intriguing in that passage.  Depending upon whether the person is John or Lazarus opens that up for further intrigue.  Of course there are many traditions that suggest John the Apostle did not die on Patmos - but rather lived - and continues to live - even with the cup of life - whatever that is.  I think more likely that Lazarus did eventually die for a second time. Still, it is not a hill I will die on. For me it is personal curiosity rather than a deep theological mystery.  

And certainly not a secret that is being hid. 
Topic's author
#148
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,569
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret

Stephen Wrote:So are you now saying that Lazarus was in fact a disciple, Tradesecret?

Tradesecret wrote: I never said otherwise.


 So you are staying with your claim that Lazarus was a disciple although the BIBLE doesn't mention this anywhere.
Ok. That is something else you may regret saying- twice. 
#149
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,426
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
All of us are just waiting for your new perspective.

And waiting and waiting.
Topic's author
#150
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,569
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret

 But he [Lazarus] is a disciple using even the terminology you used.  

But how do you know he was a disciple when he is nowhere named as one.?  Even the "terminology" doesn't suggest it imo. Whenever Jesus is in the company of disciples the bible as a rule state it clearly. So can you state for me the "terminology" that the bible is using to suggest Lazarus is a disciple?