Rob,
Gene you're still not giving us any evidence.
And your above example makes no sense. By the same
logic, if anyone makes any claim, it's up to us to
prove them wrong, rather than up to them to support
that claim.
That is the case when it comes to evidence. In the
case of Dan Rather and his allegations if no one
noticed the obvious forgery he would have been able to
use that forgery as 'evidence' concerning President
Bush to make the points he wanted to. When you
consider that matter you have to wonder why Mr. Rather
didn't do his homework. Some have gone so far as to
say he was complicit.
I'll reiterate some points...
- The fact that false claims exist is not proof that
all claims are false.
- Of all the gospels the one clearly not able to be
dismissed based on hearsay is the Gospel of John.
- The evidence you are constantly asking for and I am
constantly stating is the book of John.
- The bold in your quote is very true; as was the
case of Mr. Rather.
If you would agree that the Gospel of John is relevant
as described by Rule 901. (Requirement of
Authentication or Identification)
- 8. Ancient documents or data compilation. Evidence
that a document or data compilation, in any form, (A)
is in such condition as to create no suspicion
concerning its authenticity, (B) was in a place where
it, if authentic, would likely be, and (C) has been in
existence 20 years or more at the time it is offered.
then you have to consider the evidence.
If you don't agree then your disagreement is with the
forensic manner courts use to reconstruct past events
in an attempt to find the facts. A little while ago
you mentioned...
This isn't a court of law, the truth isn't
determined by the same means as people are put in
prison, so I'm not interested in legal definitions.
They aren't adding to this discussion.
I fully agree this isn't a court. The point is that
if the Gospel of John can rise to the level of being
relevant in a court by the rules of evidence then it
might be worth more than a cursory examination.
People (idealistically) are tried and judged on the
facts of the matter. That isn't always the case yet
that's the objective of the legal process.
For the longest time there was a new testament theory
that put the writing of it in the third century. I'm
not aware of any skeptic scholar that holds that view
today. If it were true then the gospel of John would
obviously be a forgery and wouldn't merit
consideration as an historical document. If your
objection to accepting John is based on a
predisposition as to what is or isn't possible (ie the
miraculous) I'm not in a position to change your mind.
You might consider the impossibility of your request.
It's not possible to provide a video or a notarized
document from the ancient world. History is
reconstructed based on the documentary evidence and
archeology. Presenting examples of various claims (ie
homer, your claim to be the son of God, L. Ron
Hubbard, etc. aren't relevant to a look at John; they
are separate matters and diversions.
At a higher level of debate the scholar would point to
the theology of John being rather evolved for the
primitive church (ie In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God, and the Word was
God...etc.). At that level the evidence is accepted
and an attempt is made to dismiss it based on more
points than you can shake a stick at. That's one
reason I explained I would prefer to be superficial
about the matter. At this level you still can't
decide if you want to accept the evidence or not. I'm
not interested at this level either.
Gene
