westboro baptist WTF

[sanjuro_ronin]

I'm curious where it's said that his use of the symbol came first and that it was then applied to Christianity. Genuinely interested in reading the source (not trying to be a d!ck).

The cross was a very interesting symbol for the Christians to use, it was, as Paul mentioned, a stumbling block for the Jews ( to be "hung on a tree" was a very bad death for a Jew) and to preach it was considered foolishness for the Gentiles ( Why preach that your lord and saviour died like a common criminal?), and yes, in Paul's own words he boasted in nothing but the Cross and Jesus cruscified on it.

Why?
The Gospel of john sheds some light on this:
"God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son for it".
The cross is a symbol of God's eternal and undying love for Us, a love to strong that to show us this love, to prove to us that we are worthy of it, God ( God's essence) in the Flesh, died for Us.

[David Jamieson]

The cross was a very interesting symbol for the Christians to use, it was, as Paul mentioned, a stumbling block for the Jews ( to be "hung on a tree" was a very bad death for a Jew) and to preach it was considered foolishness for the Gentiles ( Why preach that your lord and saviour died like a common criminal?), and yes, in Paul's own words he boasted in nothing but the Cross and Jesus cruscified on it.

Why?
The Gospel of john sheds some light on this:
"God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son for it".
The cross is a symbol of God's eternal and undying love for Us, a love to strong that to show us this love, to prove to us that we are worthy of it, God ( God's essence) in the Flesh, died for Us.

The Gospel of John is the Last Gospel added and is so wildly different from Matthew Mark and Luke it is...well suspect.

Look at the glaring differences. It is the only gospel where Jesus talks at length about himself. It is the only gospel that makes a deliberate link to the construct of Jesus and God being family proper etc. Nowhere in the other gospels is there such a brute force direct implication.

In short, it is quite possible that the gospel of John is a fabrication and plant of Bishop Iraeneus who's principle motivation was to stamp out the original Christianity which was gnosis in favour of an established ruling body of bishops who controlled the faith and the flow of wealth.

[sanjuro_ronin]

The Gospel of John is the Last Gospel added and is so wildly different from Matthew Mark and Luke it is...well suspect.

Look at the glaring differences. It is the only gospel where Jesus talks at length about himself. It is the only gospel that makes a deliberate link to the construct of Jesus and God being family proper etc. Nowhere in the other gospels is there such a brute force direct implication.

In short, it is quite possible that the gospel of John is a fabrication and plant of Bishop Iraeneus who's principle motivation was to stamp out the original Christianity which was gnosis in favour of an established ruling body of bishops who controlled the faith and the flow of wealth.

I think you need to read up a bit more on it, no offense.
It may be more explicit on certian things, which makes sense considering it is going into detail about things the others didn't.
The synoptics show certain traits and charaterestics of Jesus and his disciples, the GOJ goes into more detail about Jesus, his full ministry and such.

[David Jamieson]

I think you need to read up a bit more on it, no offense.
It may be more explicit on certian things, which makes sense considering it is going into detail about things the others didn't.
The synoptics show certain traits and charaterestics of Jesus and his disciples, the GOJ goes into more detail about Jesus, his full ministry and such.

I have, do and still open my bible daily.

I'm gonna be straight here. I don't care much for organized religion and especially not for organized churches that use such things as a ways and means of collecting money and influencing or attempting to influence minds that are seeking.

The Gospel of John is so different from the others as to raise quite a bit of questions about it's actual validity. It has in it stuff that none of the others have that you may or may not be aware of, but which in essence put Jesus over the top by comparison.

Only in John does Jesus raise the dead! Amazing! Truly astounding miracles are found in John without mention of other things he was recorded to have done in the other gospels. It's (GOJ) incongruent.

Yes, old books have ...embellishments too. In my opinion, it is this gospel (John) that served the early Church the best in the agenda to destroy what I consider true Christianity.

Matthew Mark and Luke are beautiful and for me have some real meaning. But John is so much like an unbelievable fairy tale it actually taints the rest. I don't put much, if any stock in the Gospel of John I guess is the long and short of it.

While I appreciate the teachings of Christianity, I don't put it's church founders above or beyond any of the failings of the rest of us. I do not believe this particular gospel belongs. It really is a case of one of these things is not like the others for me.

[sanjuro_ronin]

To me the miracles play a very small part in my faith.
Jesus raised the dead in the synoptics too, a dead girl at least from what I remember.
I john he just raised Lazarus.
Some modern scholars have the view that GOJ is actually older than Luke's but that is really irrelevant.
The GOJ is no more full of Christology than Paul's Letters, it is just worded much better and more poetically.
Most scholars view the GOJ as the "concluding gosple", the one that is the closest to the real persona of Jesus, some because it was the "last" one and filled in ther blanks,others because it was written by the "beloved" disciple.
Views are views and we may never know for sure.
To me, Matt, Mark and Luke are the "biographies" and John's is an eulogy, know what I mean?
One can see why people died for their faith in the jesus of the GOJ and nowhere is the message of Love so well written than John and his letters to of course.
Though many think that there were at least 2 johns, the apostle and the elder.