Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I believe generalizations are bad for both sides because it marginalizes specific individuals' reasons for believing or not believing.
Nope...Not true.
I know, I've seen their arguments. And I've read the other side too. Any more I think it's become such a minority view to where I don't give it much sway at all.Oh, there are definitely scholars out there who think that John was a disciple (if not necessarily one of the Twelve). It's a minority view, but not the sort of thing that we can say isn't true.
The gospels, don't claim to be eye witness accounts and they were penned by anonymous authors, decades after the supposed events they describe.
The gospel of John, is the latest of all the gospels penned and likely 50-60 years after the supposed events took place. John was penned by an anonymous author as the other 3 gospels were. If someone anonymously wrote a book today filled with stories, that they claim happened 50 years ago, that would not be considered an eye witness account. An eye witness account, requires the identification of the eye witness and a way to independently verify, that the account was an eye witness account.
In courts of law, which tries to get at the truth, for an eye witness account to be accepted, that eye witness has to take the stand and be cross examined. Otherwise, it is hearsay testimony.
"I cannot wrap my mind around the idea of how lightning might possibly come to exist naturally, so it's CLEARLY a supernatural weapon hurled by a deity." Creationist "logic" in a nutshell.
Attributing phenomena that are not yet understood to a deliberate creative process like the ones our species engages in when building structures or painting works of art misses the fact that 99.9% of the processes around us exhibit order *without* the involvement of human-like agency.
The way our species create is the "odd one out", not vice versa.
Church can say what they like, it doesn't change that the gospels are not eye witness accounts.
I know, I've seen their arguments. And I've read the other side too. Any more I think it's become such a minority view to where I don't give it much sway at all.
I get your point. I wonder though, where does one draw the line? Do we give flat earthers the same ear?You don't have to, but you can't say, "Nope, not true," to someone who does, unless you can discredit every scholar who disagrees with you.
I get your point. I wonder though, where does one draw the line? Do we give flat earthers the same ear?
OK...point made. To be honest with you, I've known this all along. But clearly in my own mind I've drawn a line. That's come about because I don't believe any of the Bible is written by anyone who actually knew Jesus personally. And I believe that scholarly examination of the text have more than shown that as a truth. At one time I was able to give the same leeway as you do to the authorship question of John, but no more.Wherever we want to draw the line, it most certainly should not be at ancient history. There's certainly no scientific reason to think that the author of John wasn't a disciple, and everyone is going to bring their own perspective to an analysis of the texts and the credibility of early Christian tradition.
OK...point made. To be honest with you, I've known this all along. But clearly in my own mind I've drawn a line. That's come about because I don't believe any of the Bible is written by anyone who actually knew Jesus personally. And I believe that scholarly examination of the text have more than shown that as a truth. At one time I was able to give the same leeway as you do to the authorship question of John, but no more.
As an aside but distantly related perspective, The Gospel of John to me is best understood through the lens of mysticism. Though there are scholars who say the same, we are a minority. And one can clearly hear the echoing calls of "Nope, Not True" ringing through the hall ways when that perspective is introduced. So I get what your saying.
I don't understand how a style used to tell the story of Jesus should be considered provd that it wasn't written by the Apostol John.OK...point made. To be honest with you, I've known this all along. But clearly in my own mind I've drawn a line. That's come about because I don't believe any of the Bible is written by anyone who actually knew Jesus personally. And I believe that scholarly examination of the text have more than shown that as a truth. At one time I was able to give the same leeway as you do to the authorship question of John, but no more.
As an aside but distantly related perspective, The Gospel of John to me is best understood through the lens of mysticism. Though there are scholars who say the same, we are a minority. And one can clearly hear the echoing calls of "Nope, Not True" ringing through the hall ways when that perspective is introduced. So I get what your saying.
Not all Jews are going to have the same style, especially John who didn't stay his whole life in Judea.Is there any disputing that the three "synoptic" gospels share a body of text instead of being written utterly independently by eyewitnesses?
Because I'm telling you, if three of my students handed me in such a report, and then claimed that they had all written them independently, I'd fail their behinds immediately.
As to the authorship of "John's" gospel:
You could probably try to build a case for this being the only canonical eyewitness account, fundamentally diverging from the synoptics because they merely expanded upon another line of tradition. But then, you'd have to dismiss just how decidedly greek and "un-jewish" this gospel is (in light of the fact that the historical John would have been a Jew), and how it seems to speak more to the contemporary status and identity of Christianity in the late 1st century CE than to the historical situation of Jesus's ministry.
Is there any disputing that the three "synoptic" gospels share a body of text instead of being written utterly independently by eyewitnesses?
You could probably try to build a case for this being the only canonical eyewitness account, fundamentally diverging from the synoptics because they merely expanded upon another line of tradition. But then, you'd have to dismiss just how decidedly greek and "un-jewish" this gospel is (in light of the fact that the historical John would have been a Jew), and how it seems to speak more to the contemporary status and identity of Christianity in the late 1st century CE than to the historical situation of Jesus's ministry.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?