Talk:Great Gospel of John

Where to begin?

Ok, I'm here to help but I'm trying to rein in my "how is this notable?" instinct so I think I'll follow dab's lead.Simonm223 (talk) 14:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it meets WP:BK. Check out de:Großes Evangelium Johannes, noting that the Germans tend to have a rather Prussian attitude towards policing their articles for notability. Its the central text of a sect of an estimated 100k adherents. --dab (𒁳) 14:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. That is why I am here to help but not to come in with my normal pugilism.Simonm223 (talk) 14:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

For now keeping article as is and urging discussion. Would be interested to hear ideas for improvement.Simonm223 (talk) 16:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I keep urging Torchrunner to come over to the talk page and discuss edits but no luck.Simonm223 (talk) 18:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm here. I do not agree with this sentence: "Lorber presents a Christology where the Christ is God in the flesh (Monophysitism)" Lorber doesn't preach Christ. And to put it like this, doesn't emphasise but dilutes this. Lorber does preach one God, no holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit can not be seperated. It is because of the Holy Spirit that Jesus could be annointed, and Christ means annointed Messiah. And the message Paul brought to the church is the message of "Christ in me the hope of glory", meaning that every believer can receive the spirit of Christ. But Lorber distorts all this. He makes as if every body is born with a flame of love, which is the god spirit...a whole new theology...Lorber doesn't teach or talk about Christ. That's why I don't like the way this is put here.

Furthermore I also don't agree totally that the books are written on the same structure as the biblical Gospel of John. (Torchrunner (talk) 07:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC))

Prediction claims

Despite the suggestion in the article that others say Lorber makes predictions, I could find none using Google Books and Scholar. What I did find was a self-published book by an anonymous author [1] -- see [2] which is the page of the company publishing the book - also available through [3] again self-publishing. I've removed the entire section. Dougweller (talk) 18:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, will cease blocking that edit then.Simonm223 (talk) 19:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It appears that Lorber-Verlag publishes books about Lorber being a prophet "predicting" modern technology. These are basically self-published literature, not self-published by Lorber of course, but self-published by the Lorber movement. It is of course permissible to use such sources just as long as they are identified for what they are, and as long as they aren't used to argue notability.

Fwiiw, "scientific foreknowledge" from 1850 isn't the same as "scientific foreknowledge" in, say, the Qu'ran, a text written in the dark ages. In the mid 19th century, science fiction was thriving, and people had all sorts of futuristic notions of where the technological revolution would be taking them. I mean, Jules Verne's From the Earth to the Moon was published in 1865. There is just about as much "scientific foreknowledge" in Lorber as there is in Verne, I suppose. --dab (𒁳) 09:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Back when the quotes were up I thought it humorous that many of them seemed to be talking about the steam engine becoming more wide-spread (rather than about the internet).Simonm223 (talk) 14:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

here's a thought ... might we categorize Lorber under Category:Steampunk? --dab (𒁳) 14:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Religious practice food

Somebody asked for verification on what I wrote.

In the great Gospel book 1 chapter 242 the following text appears: [10] Kyk, Ek laat deur My engel self elke jaar al die vrugtebome waarvan die mense die vrugte eet, baie sorgvuldig ondersoek, sodat geen appel, geen peer en geen enkele vrug met watter naam ookal, waarvan tydens die bloei die aanset gevorm word, ryp word, as hulleself daarin een of ander, vir die ontwikkelingsfase van die vrug, nog te onreine geeste binnegesmokkel het; al dergelike vrugte word nog algeheel groen van die boom of die struik verwyder.

[11] Dieselfde voorsorgmaatreëls word getref by al die, vir die menslike voeding bestemde, graansoorte en plante.

[12] Maar die blinde mens besef dit nie slegs gladnie, maar verslind nog bowendien as `n smulhappie alles wat vir hom maar enigsins lekker voorkom; is dit dan `n wonder dat hy siek, traag, vermoei, gebrekkig en dus steeds ongelukkiger word?

[13] So is ook al die soorte sogenaamde aartappels veral vir kinders en sogende vroue, eweas vir swanger vroue, meer as sleg, en nòg slegter is koffie! Maar wat blind is, sien niks en dit geniet gulsig van beide vanweë die aangename smaak; maar die kinders word daardeur liggaamlik ongelukkig, en ten slotte ongelukkige vrouens en mans. Dit steur die blinde egter nie; hy eet immers ook veel swaarder gifstowwe - waarom sou hy die twee ligtere gifsoorte dan nie eet nie?!

When I translate it it basically comes down to explaining how in each fruits and vegies are captive spirits, but some are not good to eat and others are not "ripe" yet (green fruits). In verse 13 in particular it is explained how potatoes and coffee are not good to eat and should be avoided.

If you look at Tim4:1-3, Paul warned about doctrines of demons that would come in in latter times, teaching people to abstain from marriage and also to abstain from foods which God made to be received with thanksgiving. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torchrunner (talk • contribs) 13:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but an argument that instructing people to avoid starchy food and caffeine is proof of satanism is in violation of WP:OR, WP:SOAP, WP:NPoV and WP:BOLLOCKS; I am sorry if this offends but I would refer you to WP:SPADE please, just stop.Simonm223 (talk) 14:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

we get it, Torchrunner subscribes to sola scriptura, meaning his idea of an "argument" is quoting a few verses of the bible and then showing how these quotes in connection with a particular situation are making some point or other for him. While this would make Torchrunner a great scholasticist, Wikipedia is not a 13th century project, and the approach is completely invalid for our purposes. --dab (𒁳) 14:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Unlike Torchrunner (talk · contribs) I subscribe to scriptura carnero attero and as such don't see that as a valid argument.Simonm223 (talk) 15:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Orthodox Christianity rejects certain ideas based on scripture. When one presents a section on theology and religious practice of a group which claims to be christian and bible believers, surely it is not that reasonable to mention a discrepancy with orthodox christianity? Anywhy, that was a sidenote I added. The verification that you needed why I said that their restraining from certain foods is part of their religious pracrice, I have added, by adding chapter and verse and book for each claim. To make the point more complete, one could include a comment about it's comparison with what is considered orthodox christianity. But if you are uncomfortable with that, then I won't force the issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torchrunner (talk • contribs) 16:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

So find a reliable source on the views of Orthodox Christianity on this subject and report that sources statement. Do you get it yet?Simonm223 (talk) 16:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

OK. But the point which I tried to make here was not to prove something from the bible, but to provide the verification for the claim that the book indeed discourage the eating of certain foods. Still if you look on the article verification is required for the claim that they coffee and potatoes are not to be included in diets. But I feel I did give proof by adding chapter verse and book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torchrunner (talk • contribs) 16:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The question then becomes why you believe this to be notable enough for inclusion. A prohibition on starch and caffeine seems rather trivial to me.Simonm223 (talk) 16:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

the Bible is not a source about Lorber. Thebooks of thenew testament date to the Roman era. Lorber wrote in the19th century. Enough said. You want to make a statement about Lorber? Cite a source that discusses Lorber. If you cannot find a single source on the whole wide world discussing Lorber's dietary prescriptions wrt the bible, chances are that there is no reason why Wikipedia should have such a discussion. --dab (𒁳) 17:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The supporters of Lorber believes they are reading a "supplimentation" of the bible. That is also why in the document about Lorber it was highlighted how the only book Lorber studied was the bible. The people who typically start off reading Lorber is bible believers. Therefore also the need for Lorber to write the book "Bible verses and their hidden meaning" and also why the 'Great Gospel' is advocated by Lorber believers to be a true reflection of the bible. I have seen sites explaining the relationship of the bible and Lorber, will check to see if I can find it as proof. For a Hindu it wouldn't matter whether what he believes is contrary to the bible or not. But for a Lorber believer, it would, because they (in general) truly believe, they are bible believers and followers.

(Torchrunner (talk) 17:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC))

A caution, an evangelical Christian website may not necessarily constitute a reliable source to Lorber. We keep putting these policy links up in hopes you will read them. Also, seriously, read WP:SOAP. Simonm223 (talk) 17:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Look, the Lorber movement is mostly active in Germany. The Evangelical Chruch of Germany is the largest Christian organization in Germany. We cite an evaluation of Lorber by an institution of the Evangelical Church of Germany. This makes sense, doesn't it? Why would the Islamic University of Cairo, or, for that matter, the Patriarch of Moscow or the University of Utah issue statements about Lorber? This mostly affects German Christianity, so unsurprisingly our sources are from the milieu of German Christianity. As it happens, the account of the mainstream Evangelical Church of Germany is not "zomg evil cult, call the exorcists", it is simply "Lorber was a gifted, pious man, but we don't buy the 'revelation' part". That's it. If you are unhappy with this verdict, present other sources, but stop implying that there "should" be other sources without providing any. --dab (𒁳) 17:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense to me.Simonm223 (talk) 17:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The new bible

For background - Here is a link that explains how the Old testament plus the new testament plus the new revelation together forms the new bible.

I quote: "Just as the NEW TESTAMENT belongs to the OLD TESTAMENT and only together make up the BIBLE known until now, it is God’s Holy Will that the present Bible be completed through this NEW BIBLE for the New Era on Earth, thus forming the Holy Trilogy. http://www.newbible.de/newbible_notes_en.html" This is not from a Christian site, but from a Lorber supporter site. This is how strong they place emphasis on Scripture, and there are other links that also explains their view that there is no contradiction between Lorber's work and scripture. (Torchrunner (talk) 18:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC))

Please read dab's statement directly above this new section and then read the summary directly below this section. I'm through telling you the same thing over and over again.Simonm223 (talk) 18:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Summary

I thought I would create a summary section, since there are a lot of comments all over the place, and it would be helpful to editors just joining the discussion have an idea of what's happening. Please feel free to correct or add as necessary. (By the way, most of this is obvious Wikipedia policy, but at this point I thought it makes sense repeating it a bit here.)

• Information cannot be added to the article that does not have a reliable source. Reliable sources that review Lorber and his work do not include just straight references to Bible quotes. It can include some statements from the Evangelical Chruch of Germany. It generally does not include comments by random reverands.

• While some editors feel strongly about Lorber and his work (including either wanting to make sure the public knows about it so they can see how great it is, or wanting to make sure the public knows about it so they avoid going to hell), that is not what Wikipedia is. When you start down that road, you end up preaching the work or criticizing the work using orignal research, which is not allowed.

• Wikipedia is not a place for editors to publish their views about Lorber and his work. See WP:NOT#OR.

• Puting up two properly references sources, and then asking readers (directly or indirectly) to compare the sources to reach a conclusion is against Wikipedia policy. Conclusions can only be posted (including implied conclusions) if there is reliable source that has drawn the conclusion. It does not matter how obvious the conclusion is to the editor.

Singularity42 (talk) 17:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I do take note. Let's take the example now of the New Bible. The entire purpose of Lorber, Swedenborg and other Neo-revelationists are to create this "New Bible" and through their writings to insert the 3rd section. This I can confirm through Lorber support sites as well as through critics like http://www.watch.pair.com/new-scripture.html who explains the strategy of satan to introduce a New Bible in order to introduce a new world order.

This I don't consider new research? I don't know how you feel. It is more like a given fact, and explains why somebody like Leopold Engel who helped revive the illuminati had such a strong interest in partaking in the "writing" of this new bible (I am mentioning this, I know I need a source for this conclusion to put it on the actual article, but I am just talking now). Everything is part of a strategy. A holistic strategy. And it required occultists who could connect with demonic spirits to participate in this work.

Now I know I must be neutral, but I keep this in mind. Because the value of the article (my view) is so much more significant if it can address core issues. I have no intention to break policy, but I do see a bigger picture here and want the article to have maximum impact for everybody that seeks truth. I am not geared towards discrediting anything or anybody, but to bring truth, and surely that is the goal of Wikipedia as well, for that is what changes the world and makes Wikipedia so valuable - is Truth.

(Torchrunner (talk) 18:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC))

To answer to your first question (the purpose of Lorber), look at the first sentence of the point one of the summary: Information cannot be added to the article that does not have a reliable source. If you have a reliable source that says that the purpose of Lorber et al is to create a new bible, then you can post that. If you have a source, but you are unsure of its reliability, read WP:RS. If you are still unsure of its reliability, bring it up here.

To answer to your last point (the article should be geared towards maximum truth), you have to be careful of adding personal essays and personal opinion, (both of which are described at WP:NOT#OR). Your opinion might be an obvious truth to you, but it might not be to everyone else. That is why we always insist on reliable sources. Singularity42 (talk) 18:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Here is a quote Martin, Walter Ralston, 1928-1989

The kingdom of the cults/ by Walter Martin; Ravi Zacharias, general edition; Jill Martin Rishe and Kevin Rische, managing editors. - Rev. And updated ed.

Includes bibliographical references and indexes.

ISBN 0-7642-2821-8

Page 641 quote: "The great tragedy of Emanuel Swedenborg is that he would not submit himself and his great mind to the discipline of the Holy Spirit and the Scriptures. Because of this, and because of his deliberated preoccupation with spiritism and the occult, in direct disobedience to the express teachings of God, he was despoiled, even as Paul had warned. He was deceived by dreams and visions and the machinations of him whom the Scripture describe as the 'spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience' Eph 2:2b)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torchrunner (talk • contribs) 19:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

THat book is not a reliable source for scholarly discussion of 19th century German Mysticism.Simonm223 (talk) 19:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

This book is released Oct 2003. And it has an entire section on Swedenborgianism. Swedenborg is considered a mystic. I don't understand why it wouldn't count? It is a prescribed book of theology at some universities. (Torchrunner (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC))

I've mentioned my concerns about that book at Talk:Jakob Lorber.Simonm223 (talk) 20:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I can accept the Martin & Zacharias source as documenting rejection of Swedenborgianism in US Evangelical Christianity. I can support its inclusion in the Swedenborgianism article as referencing a brief statement that Swedenborg is unpopular in US Christian fundamentalism. Torchrunner's attempt to use this source here, in the article on a work by Jakob Lorber, not Swedenborg, is a classic example of WP:SYNTH, as the source doesn't even mention Lorber, let alone comment on his Great Gospel.

By now we have told Torchrunner literally dozens of times can he please review WP:SYNTH and respect the guidelines there, and he is still acting as if he had never in his life seen that page or been pointed to it, that I am also through repeating myself. Torchrunner, if you cannot finally bring yourself to carry your own weight, you should not be surprised if your edits are simply reverted without further comment in the future. --dab (𒁳) 12:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Great Gospel of John. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081223224850/http://www.merkurpublishing.com/Lorber_Great_Gospel_John_New_Revelation.htm to http://www.merkurpublishing.com/Lorber_Great_Gospel_John_New_Revelation.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)