Search results

We need to be careful here. Icons, in the sense of pictoral representations of biblical stories, such as one might find in Baptist church, yes. Icons in terms of religious images of saints considered as windows to the spiritual realm, before which we are to pray and light candles, absolutely...

Yes, yet the BD was so well known to the high priest that he could be recognized by servants and given unquestioned access to the high priest's palace. People try to explain this by suggesting that the Apostle John sold fish to the high priest, but that doesn't sound convincing to me.

It doesn't require any "editing out"; the Fourth Gospel is different in its emphasis from the other Gospels and doesn't focus on the twelve, the inner circle or the Galilean ministry. The poster also ignores what was said earlier about the obvious fact that the priestly circle didn't know John...

Yes, Peter, James and John, in that order of importance. Yet the disciple whom Jesus loved is in the preeminent place, not in third place behind Peter and James. It's not based on the high priest. I've already stated that that is one of many pieces of evidence. But it is significant, and can't...

Rather than deal with the points I have made, here the poster has exploited the ambiguity of whether the apostle is named or not to insinuate that my reasoning is flawed. According to this poster I was responding to, the Gospel claims that the apostle John is the author. I stated in response...

The Beloved Disciple is an anonymous figure throughout the account, including after John 21:2. Why return to speaking of him as the anonymous 'disciple' if he had been named already? If he remains 'the disciple,' it can only mean that he had not been explicitly named in the account by name...

The apostle is never mentioned in the gospel of John. There is a discussion as to which John wrote it, or even whether a person named John wrote it. I don't think I could introduce you to the main issues of the debate in a quick post, but I could point out one or two things for now. 1) The...

It isn't 'generally agreed' at all! It's generally agreed that we don't know! Luke is a good option though, I would agree as far as that. I agree, however, that John the Apostle didn't write the Gospel and Revelation.

Yes, I don't see any absolute need for the three and a half year ministry, unless Daniel's seventy weeks makes reference to it. On the other hand, the particular terminology with respect to Tiberius suggests to me that his regal years were not in view, and the historians (Durant, Gibbon) seem to...

I have benefited from following this discussion. I am still inclined to the view that Luke was dating from the coregency; another possibility is that Jesus' ministry only spanned about two years from his baptism to his death. Both would arrive at a death in AD 30.

The dual isn't generally needed for classical Greek either (though I think I stumbled across it once in Plato, if I'm not mistaken). A better way would be to supplement wider Greek studies with ecclesiastical, byzantine and modern Greek, to get a flavor for the kinds of change that took place in...

Such as? The recent studies on verbal aspect among evangelical koine scholars? Perhaps had people had a better grasp on Greek, such studies would have been rightfully dismissed. But I'll let F. F. Bruce, perhaps the greatest conservative scholars of the twentieth century, answer this one: "I...

Better I think to get a decent grammar that works with homeric or classical Greek. NT Greek books, what one of my profs called 'The NT Greek industry', just doesn't seem to be effective at producing people who can read Greek at a proficient level.

The issue of whether the author was an eyewitness and apostolic person is being addressed. Perhaps you just aren't aware of it.

I think my negative view may spring too much from my experiences on forums like this one where people sometimes make unjustifiable claims about the Greek, and when they are challenged, their response is that they have had a year or two of seminary Greek. Actually, add to that some of the...

Yes, I have that book though I never really used it. I can't remember the name of the grammar I learned from. Yes, Hebrew only takes a few years.

Except that it isn't dismissed by all who reject Zebedean authorship. You seem to assume that if someone rejects that John the son of Zebedee wrote it, they also reject the view that it was written by an apostolic person, an eyewitness. This is not the case, and suggests to me that you aren't...

That is the motivation of some, but you falsely impute this motive to all.

That would be down to things like what textbooks they are using, the order in which they learn material and the speed at which they learn the material. My first semesters of Greek were far more difficult than the first semesters of Hebrew, though Hebrew can be finicky at a morphological level.

I'm not sure why you offer an opinion of things you don't know about by your own admission. That is odd. I've never heard anyone who has studied both say that Greek is anything other than far more difficult than Hebrew. The syntax and grammar of Hebrew is heavily nuanced, but the basics can be...