Craig Blomberg's The Historical Reliability of John's Gospel examines John's Gospel verse by verse and identifies an abundance of historical details and facts.
Check out the list at the following link
Truthbomb Apologetics: 59 Confirmed or Historically Probable Facts in the Gospel of John
OK, so these facts help distinguish between "Fantasy" and "Not-Fantasy", but do any of them help distinguish John (or more importantly, ALL of John) as "Fiction" and "Non-Fiction"?
ReplyDeleteAccurately depicting the use of stone jars for water is no different that John Grisham, in his FICTIONAL book, The Client, correctly depicting actual brands of cigarettes smoked in the 1993.
And wow, stop the presses, the John author new one "went up" to get to Jerusalem. Breathtaking...
ReplyDelete"new"?
ReplyDeleteI hope you meant "knew".
Again with this canard. Look John Grisham is not claiming to write truth. John is. Read John 20: 30-31
If Grisham had claimed to be writing about actual events that happened in 1993 but got the brand of cigarettes wrong, it would be proof that Grisham's work had fictitious elements. Having real facts does distinguish a work between fantasy and non-fantasy because in John either you can show the facts are true or in the other cases you can't show that they are false. Therefore because of John's intent (give people information they need to know) versus Grishams' (entertain others to the point that they buy his books) comparing them makes no senses. If Grisham was also writing history (an we all agree he's not) and you could demonstrate that it's fiction and that John is fiction - then you have an apt comparison. Truly sad. You have no really good reason to conclude that John is wrong.
OK fine, how about Frey's A Million Little Pieces or Charrière's Papillion or any number of memoirs that were later proven to contain non-truths?
ReplyDeleteAnd did the guy king of typos and butchered grammar just call me out on a typo? Matthew 7 comes to mind.
And you know the Johnnian author's intent?
ReplyDeleteSo your position seems to be that superficial accuracy (what else would you call knowing Jerusalem is on a hill or that people drank out of stoneware?) and perceived intent are all you need to conclude something is actually true.
ReplyDeleteIf so, I have some land south of Disney World I'd love to sell you.
OK fine, how about Frey's A Million Little Pieces or Charrière's Papillion or any number of memoirs that were later proven to contain non-truths?
ReplyDeleteStill doesn't matter. What I said still stands. Thanks for the concession.
And did the guy king of typos and butchered grammar just call me out on a typo? Matthew 7 comes to mind.
Just a reminder that you are just as wrong about your conclusions. This wasn't your first. Neither will it be your last. No need to get angry. And what do you care about Matthew 7? I agree Matthew 7 is true and you do not. Admit that Matthew and John are true and I'll repent for the "offense" although I've committed none.
And you know the Johnnian author's intent?
Yes. I do. I quoted it. Didn't you see it? You want the Kione Greek version?
So your position seems to be that superficial accuracy (what else would you call knowing Jerusalem is on a hill or that people drank out of stoneware?) and perceived intent are all you need to conclude something is actually true.
Nope. That is not my position. It's not a superficial detail to know that people at that time and place had to go up to Jerusalem or drank out of stoneware. People writing several decades afterward about a place they never been would not necessarily know those 59 things. I would say authorial intent and correct incidental details are necessary but not sufficient in concluding a literary work is objectively true. Be honest. Had John written that the people were using glassware you would use it as evidence that the Gospel of John was false. Consistency please.
Okay, Technically I only gave the reference to John's intent. But Go read it if you want to know why John's Gospel was written.
ReplyDeleteStill doesn't matter. What I said still stands. Thanks for the concession.
ReplyDeleteOne, it does matter as you'll (hopefully) see below, and two, it's not a concession, but curiously, what you say next is.
I would say authorial intent and correct incidental details are necessary but not sufficient in concluding a literary work is objectively true.
Yes, definitely, but that's simply a restatement of what was getting at in the very beginning when I asked if any of these facts distinguish John as "Fiction" and "Non-Fiction", and your answer is no, they do not. Cool.
Had John written that the people were using glassware you would use it as evidence that the Gospel of John was false. Consistency please.
Um, of course I would. An incorrect detail is sufficient to determine non-truth of a work and an absence of incorrect details is necessary but not sufficient to determine truth of a work. How in the world is not consistent?
Okay, Technically I only gave the reference to John's intent.
Yeah that's great and all, but you don't know the John author's intent, no more than we know what Frey or Charrière were thinking when they put pen to paper. You may know the author's stated intent, and you may have inferred what you precived to be his intent, but you don't actually know his actual intent.
Nope. Doesn't matter because I have never argued that authorial intent and accurate incidental facts were adequate to prove anything is objectively true. I am only saying that it is evidence in favor demonstrating truth. That is more than you have for concluding that John is not true. You need more than this to conclufe that John is false.
ReplyDeleteAnd unless you can show thay John's stated intent is lie, YOU HAVE NO REASON TO PRETEND WE DON'T KNOW WHAT HIS INTENT WAS!!!!
You apparently have no reason to believe anything is untrue.
ReplyDeleteYou apparently have no reason to believe anything is untrue.
ReplyDeleteSo just because I don't think there is enough evidence to rule out John's Gospel being true, you think that means that there is no reason believe that anything is untrue? Do you really think that makes sense? I mean think about it. The best you have offered is that a few facts don't mean the entire book is true when that argument is even being raised. If you could prove that John was not true, you would have done it by now. No one can. You have not provided a single reason to believe that the Book of John is false. Good luck with that.
Do you really think that makes sense?
ReplyDeleteNo Marcus, I don't think you make any sense at all.
You have not provided a single reason to believe that the Book of John is false.
Miracle claims + late date + anonymous authorship + is sufficient.
Miracle claims + late date + anonymous authorship + is sufficient.
ReplyDelete1. You can't just assume miracles don't happen.
2. Can you prove the Apostle John did not write the Gospel of John despite the overwhelming manuscript attestation.
3. No one is arguing that this post contains everything you need to establish that the Gospel of John is true.
No, you make no sense.
You can’t just assume miracles don’t happen
ReplyDeleteSure you can, just like you can assume they do happen. But in any case, that’s not what I’m doing. I’m simply pointing out that a historical miracle claim is never sufficient, in and of itself, to prove that an actual miracle occurred.
Can you prove the Apostle John did not write the Gospel of John despite the overwhelming manuscript attestation.
Well, again, you demonstrate that you don’t know what “prove” means (or if you do know, you have one of the wackiest or dishonest epistemologies ever seen) and I don’t think you know why “manuscript attestation” has nothing to do with the topic at hand (I would be curious to see what you think “overwhelming manuscript attestation” as related to Johannine authorship is, but I’d hate for you to lose focus). But beside all that, the vast majority of scholars working today conclude that John the Apostle did not write the John Gospel. In addition to that, Church Fathers, Heretics and pagans have been questioning the authorship since it was written, Irenaeus all but says the author wasn’t “an apostle” and then there’s the little “correction” by Origen that’s still in the KJV and is pretty damning in my opinion. So, although I can’t “prove” John the Apostle didn’t write the Gospel of John (which is a worthless statement, as it is), it turns out that you cannot say with any degree of certainty who actually wrote The Gospel of John (which is a significantly more important statement). Und in bezug auf Johanneischen Gelehrsamkeit (ganz zu schweigen von Luther), wäre es hilfreich wenn Sie lesen konnte Deutsch :)
No one is arguing that this post contains everything you need to establish that the Gospel of John is true.
No, I suppose you aren't (can't), but this Chad guy is, or did you not read this post either?
And I see you didn’t argue the late date (in and of itself, sufficient!), good move…
Sure you can, just like you can assume they do happen. But in any case, that’s not what I’m doing. I’m simply pointing out that a historical miracle claim is never sufficient, in and of itself, to prove that an actual miracle occurred.
ReplyDeleteEither miracles happen or they don't. Only one of us can be correct. Just because you can't demonstrate that a miracle happened 2000 years ago does not mean that it didn't happen. Considering that miracles still occur today, I'd say that there is enough evidence to conclude that you are wrong.
Well, again, you demonstrate that you don’t know what “prove” means (or if you do know, you have one of the wackiest or dishonest epistemologies ever seen) and I don’t think you know why “manuscript attestation” has nothing to do with the topic at hand (I would be curious to see what you think “overwhelming manuscript attestation” as related to Johannine authorship is, but I’d hate for you to lose focus). But beside all that, the vast majority of scholars working today conclude that John the Apostle did not write the John Gospel. In addition to that, Church Fathers, Heretics and pagans have been questioning the authorship since it was written, Irenaeus all but says the author wasn’t “an apostle” and then there’s the little “correction” by Origen that’s still in the KJV and is pretty damning in my opinion. So, although I can’t “prove” John the Apostle didn’t write the Gospel of John (which is a worthless statement, as it is), it turns out that you cannot say with any degree of certainty who actually wrote The Gospel of John (which is a significantly more important statement). Und in bezug auf Johanneischen Gelehrsamkeit (ganz zu schweigen von Luther), wäre es hilfreich wenn Sie lesen konnte Deutsch :)
Either your information is out of date or you are just wrong. I'm not sure which. But Dr Tim McGrew gave a lecture very recently that disagrees with you.
http://www.apologetics315.com/2012/02/who-wrote-gospels-audio-and-video-by.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Apologetics315+%28Apologetics+315%29&utm_content=Google+Reader. I suggest you educate yourself.
No, I suppose you aren't (can't), but this Chad guy is, or did you not read this post either?
You mean like you can't demonstrate that the Bible is false? Okay. Where did Chad say anything of the kind. He merely pointed out that these 59 facts is evidence that John's Gospel is true. That's it. You are one trying to make a federal case of it so you can feel safe in rejecting what has come down to us in the Bible. Truly sad. Kind of pathetic. And I truly hope that God will deliver you from yourself.
Either miracles happen or they don't. Only one of us can be correct. Just because you can't demonstrate that a miracle happened 2000 years ago does not mean that it didn't happen.
ReplyDeleteAll of that is correct, but it's also all totally beside the point. The question is not if a miracle occurred in the past or if it didn't (some questions can't be answered after all), the question is can we know if one occurred or not. So if you make a strong claim like "X miracle did occur 1982 years ago" and it turns out "X miracle" actually did occur, you would only be correct in the way a broken clock is correct on occasion.
As for miracles occurring today, if you can demonstrate that, The James Randi foundation has a cool million bucks for you.
Either your information is out of date or you are just wrong.
I might be wrong, but the information is not out of date. I'll give Tim's lecture a listen if I can find time, but it won't be a priority given that I've read a good portion of the current scholarship on Johannine authorship, and Tim's not a Johannine scholar.
Where did Chad say anything of the kind.
In his closing sentence, which I'm not confident you've actually read... It takes a lifetime to build a reputation, but getting caught in only one lie to ruin it...
You are one trying to make a federal case of it so you can feel safe in rejecting what has come down to us in the Bible...
So I have to ask, why do you feel it's necessary to ascribe unsubstantiated personal and/or emotional reasons to someone who rejects the Bible? Do you honestly believe that an unbiased person who looks at the facts can't come to a different, albeit still rational, conclusion than you have come to, that they must have an emotional reason that they aren't letting on about? You should realize that proving an absence is difficult if not impossible in many cases, so proving (in a combox on a blogspot site mind you) that one has an absence of emotional reason for rejecting the Christian myths (and is not denial about it), would also difficult if not outright impossible. This makes me think it's merely a rhetorical device you use so you can feel more secure in your own faltering faith. All I can say is I don't have an emotional reason for rejecting your religion, I don't reject it to avoid guilt or to justify a particular lifestyle or "sin". You won't believe that for a second, but you should bear in mind that it just one more unfalsifiable thing you believe...
As for miracles occurring today, if you can demonstrate that, The James Randi foundation has a cool million bucks for you.
ReplyDeleteGary Habermas, JP Moreland, and many others have documented miracles in modern times. Not to mention what i have personally witnessed. You are the one without evidence.
I might be wrong, but the information is not out of date. I'll give Tim's lecture a listen if I can find time, but it won't be a priority given that I've read a good portion of the current scholarship on Johannine authorship, and Tim's not a Johannine scholar.
So maintaining your ignorance and your skepticism are priorities. Good for you.
In his closing sentence, which I'm not confident you've actually read... It takes a lifetime to build a reputation, but getting caught in only one lie to ruin it...
Yes, why don't we look at what Chad wrote in the last paragraph.
When one considers these above historically confirmed or historically probable fact and details, how reasonable is it to doubt that the author of John's Gospel [who I believe was John] was an eyewitness or at least had access to eyewitness testimony?
Hmmm....nothing about saying that these 59 fact are all that you need to prove that that John is true. It seems to me that Chad wrote no bolder nor stronger claim than I did. While on the other hand you said he did. What was that about lying? I think that's different than stating an opinion as I did. You said Chad said something he did not say.
So I have to ask, why do you feel it's necessary to ascribe unsubstantiated personal and/or emotional reasons to someone who rejects the Bible?
Because it's the only arguments you have.
Do you honestly believe that an unbiased person who looks at the facts can't come to a different, albeit still rational, conclusion than you have come to, that they must have an emotional reason that they aren't letting on about?
I have yet to see a rational conclusion from you, but of course it's possible to come from different conclusions about many thing things. But the point is that the Bible is either true or its not. You tip your hand to being emotionally driven with every insult and dismissive wave. You can't help yourself because its the only arguments you have.
You should realize that proving an absence is difficult if not impossible in many cases, so proving (in a combox on a blogspot site mind you) that one has an absence of emotional reason for rejecting the Christian myths (and is not denial about it), would also difficult if not outright impossible.
I don't need to prove it. You do it all the time. And on top of that the Bible even points that out as one of the reasons why people reject God.
This makes me think it's merely a rhetorical device you use so you can feel more secure in your own faltering faith. All I can say is I don't have an emotional reason for rejecting your religion, I don't reject it to avoid guilt or to justify a particular lifestyle or "sin". You won't believe that for a second, but you should bear in mind that it just one more unfalsifiable thing you believe...
"The wicked don't know why they stumble". I wouldn't expect you to know that you are trying to avoid guilt of sin or justify your lifestyle. Deluded people don't know they are deluded.
Gary Habermas, JP Moreland...
ReplyDeleteJP Moreland, he he... Interesting that they've not collected James' money either. Also Marcus, surviving a car accident is not a miracle.
Hmmm....nothing about saying that these 59 fact are all that you need to prove that that John is true.
Can we agree that "these above historically confirmed or historically probable fact and details" equals "these 59 fact"?
If so, then "When one considers these 59 fact, how reasonable is it to doubt that the author of John's Gospel [who I believe was John] was an eyewitness or at least had access to eyewitness testimony?"
OK...
Because it's the only arguments you have.
Um, I don't believe I've ever made an argument from emotion or personal experience. ???
Now, the remainder of your comments ARE emotionally driven, so I'll just ignore them.
Also Marcus, surviving a car accident is not a miracle.
ReplyDeleteTell that to someone who has lost a loved one in a car accident. But that's not even the best example of how I've seen the intervention of God in life...and death. Just because you cannot a recognize the move of God does not mean that God does not do anything for you or has not done anything for you.
If so, then "When one considers these 59 fact, how reasonable is it to doubt that the author of John's Gospel [who I believe was John] was an eyewitness or at least had access to eyewitness testimony?"
OK..
No. Not even close. Chad has only said that he takes these 59 facts as evidence that the author of John (whom he believes if the Apostle of John) had eyewitness or access to eyewitness testimony. He did not say that these facts are all you need to prove that the book of John is true - as you have been arguing he and I said since your first comment on this post. WE DID NOT. YOU DID. Since you seem to like to read in your own imagination into what you read, let me spell it out for you: You are wrong. No one is making such an argument and you are wasting time.
Now, the remainder of your comments ARE emotionally driven, so I'll just ignore them.
I see nothing emotional in the following:
So maintaining your ignorance and your skepticism are priorities. Good for you.
Because you said:
I might be wrong, but the information is not out of date. I'll give Tim's lecture a listen if I can find time, but it won't be a priority given that I've read a good portion of the current scholarship on Johannine authorship, and Tim's not a Johannine scholar.
What I said was based on what you said!
The only way you can think that the following is emotional is if you bring the emotions to it.
"The wicked don't know why they stumble". I wouldn't expect you to know that you are trying to avoid guilt of sin or justify your lifestyle. Deluded people don't know they are deluded.
I see nothing emotional in the following:
ReplyDeleteSo maintaining your ignorance and your skepticism are priorities. Good for you.
...I've read a good portion of the current scholarship on Johannine authorship...
OK, sure thing kid.
How is it emotional pointing out that you yourself said it wasn't a priority to look at the evidence that Dr McGrew presented in public. What other reason than emotion or stupidity could you possibly have to ignore something like that because you obviously haven't read or studied everything.
ReplyDeleteWhy would I make it a priority to check out what a non-Johannine Scholar has to say about Johannine Authorship when I've fairly current on Johannine scholarship?
ReplyDeleteIt would be like me saying your ignorant because you won't read something John Loftus wrote.
You give too much weight to the opinion of apologists.
Why would I make it a priority to check out what a non-Johannine Scholar has to say about Johannine Authorship when I've fairly current on Johannine scholarship?
ReplyDeleteBecause Dr Timothy McGrew is not just an "apologist". He is a scholar and a professor of philosophy. One of his specialties is epistemology! There is much you could learn from him - that alone should be enough. And given your tirade using German works, and what he revealed about such scholarship, there is much you still need to learn - like everyone. Sheesh. And you claim Christians are arrogant and closed-minded. You're so blind you can't even see your own arrogance.
Really? Do you really think it makes sense to compare John Loftus' scholarship and credentials with Dr Timothy McGrew's scholarship and credentials? Do you really want to do that?
ReplyDeleteAnd you claim Christians are arrogant and closed-minded.
ReplyDeleteNow you're just making stuff up.
Really? Do you really think it makes sense to compare John Loftus' scholarship and credentials with Dr Timothy McGrew's scholarship and credentials?
Yes, but that wasn't my point as much as the relevance of the scholarship and credentials.
ReplyDeleteYes, but that wasn't my point as much as the relevance of the scholarship and credentials.
My point is that Dr Tim McGrew's lecture is extremely relevant to the evidence as to the authorship of the Gospels. And your close-mindedness will make you miss out on it.
And your close-mindedness will make you miss out on it.
ReplyDeleteHey Pot, you're black!!!!!!!!!
Didn't have a chance to this week. Maybe next.
Just noticed this...
ReplyDeleteAnd given your tirade using German works...
Yes, when I happen to go on a tirade, it's as often as not in Deutsch, and Deutsch has the unfortunate distinction of almost always sounding like a tirade regardless what is said or how, and I wouldn't be surprised if you imagine everything I type here as if I'm screaming (I'm not, if you like, imagine baffled amusement with occasional flourishes of weariness), I can see why you'd think it's a "tirade". In fact, all I said was that when it comes to Johannine scholarship, it's handy to know Deutsch.
Oh, and Martin Luther too. I recall you having no idea how bad his antisemitism got in his later years.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteHey Pot, you're black!!!!!!!!!
Disagreeing doesn't equate to Closed-mindedness but refusing to consider evidence because you don't think it's relevant is being closed-minded and stupid. Thanks for the illustration.
Oh, and Martin Luther too. I recall you having no idea how bad his antisemitism got in his later years.
ReplyDeleteAbout as bad as your inability to see the relevance of information you obviously don't know about. And your unfounded prejudices against Apologists. You seemed like you were saying that Dr McGrew is an apologist and not a professor. What makes you different than a apologist - other than you like to pretend you have more authority and knowledge than you really have.
You seemed like you were saying that Dr McGrew is an apologist and not a professor.
ReplyDeleteNow you are just commenting on sentences you can make a rhetorical spring board from. Weird...
What I explicitly said was that Dr. McGrew is not a Johannine scholar. That's a fact.
you like to pretend you have more authority and knowledge than you really have.
ReplyDeleteWell, I don't pretend to have any authority. And the knowledge I have is the knowledge I have, hopefully it's a little more everyday.
You are the one who is insinuating that Dr McGrew's scholarship is not able to teach you something you don't already know about the Gospel of John. You are the one who said I put too much trust in apologists as if Tim McGrew does not have a track record showing that his work should be given a fair hearing. If you really cared about the truth and wanted to know if the Apostle John really wrote this, you would really make it a priority to look at the evidence you have access to - or you would keep your half-baked opinions to yourself.
ReplyDeleteI have not dishonestly repreesented you in rbe slightest.
Marcus, I'm not insinuating anything, I'm clearly stating that there's only so much time in a day, which requires one to be selective.
ReplyDeleteLet's say you want to the problem of evil and you only have one hour. Are you going to read Peter Kreeft or internetathiestblueeyes@compuserve.blogspot? If given the choice and limited time, are you going to watch a William Lane Craig debate, or Marino's "famous" debate with "an atheist"?
Also, I take it you believe the majority of Johannine scholarship to consist of "half-baked" opinions.
Actually, knowing you, you're going to read or watch whatever you think is going to reinforce your preexisting conclusions.
ReplyDeleteMarcus, I'm not insinuating anything, I'm clearly stating that there's only so much time in a day, which requires one to be selective.
ReplyDeleteYes, you are. And you too blind to even see it.
Let's say you want to the problem of evil and you only have one hour. Are you going to read Peter Kreeft or internetathiestblueeyes@compuserve.blogspot? If given the choice and limited time, are you going to watch a William Lane Craig debate, or Marino's "famous" debate with "an atheist"?
1. Asking you look at the work of professor and scholar is not the same as choosing to read the work of a blogger without any credentials or demonstrated expert knowledge in the field in discussion, like Dr Tim McGrew.
2. I've watched and listened to plenty of Debates with Dr William Lane Craig and would recommend all of them. At the same time I would tell EVERYONE that they should watch Mariano Grinbank debate. They will learn something. I would even tell anyone that they should make the time to watch it.
3. Of course. Mariano's debate is famous. Mariano is a teacher of Apologetics at an online university. He's famous in many circles. You know of Him. Who knows of you?
Also, I take it you believe the majority of Johannine scholarship to consist of "half-baked" opinions.
Nope. I know that's not true. And not Johannine scholarship agree. And I said your opinions are half baked because as far as you can prove you don't have all the known information and evidence that supports the Gospel of John.
Actually, knowing you, you're going to read or watch whatever you think is going to reinforce your preexisting conclusions.
Turns out that you know even less about me than you know about the Bible (a scary thought). Just because I disagree with your conclusions doesn't mean that I'm wrong. I consistently and frequently read ideas, opinions, and conclusions that I disagree with almost every day - besides yours.
And not Johannine scholarship agree.
ReplyDeleteThere it is. You know what the word "majority" means, right?
I consistently and frequently read ideas, opinions, and conclusions that I disagree with almost every day
Looking for things to disagree with and seeking out things that challenge your preexisting conclusion are two different things...
ReplyDeleteThere it is. You know what the word "majority" means, right?
Yes. Do you think that "majority" means "automatically correct"?
Looking for things to disagree with and seeking out things that challenge your preexisting conclusion are two different things..
You mean like what you do? Added to belittling the credentials of others when you have none of your own. And pretending that you can just assume that you can just throw out evidence. Yup, you sure know how to keep an open mind.
Do you think that "majority" means "automatically correct"?
ReplyDeleteNo, but it certainly means something!!!
Added to belittling the credentials of others... And pretending that you can just assume that you can just throw out evidence.
Um... how is pointing out that someone is not an expert in a field, belittling their credentials??? Seriously?
Also, be very specific here, what evidence do I throw out? That someone knew Jerusalem was built on a hill or that Jews used stoneware for water (never mind that glass drinking vessels have been found in Palestine from about 50 BCE so that one really doesn't tell us anything, does it?)???
ReplyDeleteNo, but it certainly means something!!!
I never said that it meant nothing but you seem to like to turn off your precious skepticism whenever it's convenient.
Um... how is pointing out that someone is not an expert in a field, belittling their credentials??? Seriously?
I'm referring to your attitude. You once called Dr McGrew a "mid-tier" scholar and your dismissiveness - as if his work has nothing to do with the subject at hand - goes along with that attitude.
Also, be very specific here, what evidence do I throw out? That someone knew Jerusalem was built on a hill or that Jews used stoneware for water (never mind that glass drinking vessels have been found in Palestine from about 50 BCE so that one really doesn't tell us anything, does it?)???
The evidence you throw out is the evidence you won't look at that Dr McGrew discussed that has bearing on what do we know about who wrote the New Testament in general and John in particular.
And as for these 59 facts, there is again NO ONE (not me or Chad) but YOU trying to argue that these are enough to show that the Gospel of John is true. It's only evidence that the lends itself to the idea that it was written by someone who knew what they were writing about.
I'm referring to your attitude.
ReplyDeleteYou are absolutely unable to ascertain "attitude" from typed comments on a blog. Mid-tier is accurate. You and I are no-tier, ergo...
It's only evidence that the lends itself to the idea that it was written by someone who knew what they were writing about.
Like John Grisham, or more importantly, like Jame Frey or Henri Charrière (etc...).
You are absolutely unable to ascertain "attitude" from typed comments on a blog. Mid-tier is accurate. You and I are no-tier, ergo...
ReplyDeleteSo you admit that Dr McGrew is more knowledgeable and has done more research in the matter of what do we know about the writers of the New Testament than you do. So it makes your indecision to make the time to see what he has to say all the more ludicrous. Definitely belies any credit I would have ascribed to you.
Like John Grisham, or more importantly, like Jame Frey or Henri Charrière (etc...).
Agreed. You can't honestly say you know that what is written in the Gospel of John is wrong. Thank you. Which you should have said in the first place.
So you admit that Dr McGrew is more knowledgeable and has done more research in the matter of what do we know about the writers of the New Testament than you do.
ReplyDeleteI have no idea. I've read a lot on the subject, so maybe, maybe not. I'll admit he's got a PhD in Philosophy and I do not.
You can't honestly say you know that what is written in the Gospel of John is wrong.
OK, back to this, full circle, go review the last 45 comments. It's over.
I have no idea. I've read a lot on the subject, so maybe, maybe not. I'll admit he's got a PhD in Philosophy and I do not.
ReplyDeleteI don't think you have read enough if there is information you haven't seen. Otherwise you are just deluded in thinking you know what you are talking about when you aren't even willing to examine evidence.
OK, back to this, full circle, go review the last 45 comments. It's over.
Yup, and it boils down to:
You can't honestly say you know that what is written in the Gospel of John is wrong and you can't demonstrate that the Apostle John did not write it.
It is indeed over.
Eventually this debate will end. History - written by the victors - will be exposed, and the motives for compiling/writing/fabricating the "Bible" will be exposed...
ReplyDeleteThen we can get on with it.