Scriptural literacy

[Hokulele]

... If you have evidence that negates the strong likelihood that abiogenesis is the right answer to the origin of life, then I would like to hear it.

But in a different thread, please.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

If we are going to blindly accept ascriptions, was the Gospel of Peter written by Simon Peter? If not, why not?

Was the Gospel of Thomas written by the Thomas who was a disciple? If not, why not?

Does the infancy gospel accurately reflect Jesus' boyhood? If not, why not?

Was Paul the author of 3rd Corinthians? If not, why not?

Did Paul write the pastoral epistles? Who wrote the book of Hebrews?

Were forgeries ever committed under the names of any of the apostles? Did Christians invent stories about Jesus in the early days of the church?

 

[Frozenwolf150]

It is patently false and idiotic to assume that just because people self-identify as atheists or skeptics that they're out to burn the Bible. If burning the Bible were my intent, or the intent of anyone in this discussion, we would have already done so.

Speaking of literature, I think it's obvious who's responsible for butchering the Bible from a literary perspective here. If the Bible is to be regarded like any other work of literature, then there should be nothing wrong with:

• Examining alternative interpretations. After all, most great works of literature are open to interpretation. There is no one correct way to view a given work. I've already provided several famous examples of this.
• Treating various figures as fictional characters in a fictional story. It's entirely possible to discuss the characters, their significance, relationships, development, flaws, and so forth, without making any assumptions about their literal existence.
• Criticizing the work for its plot holes, inconsistencies, loose ends, vague language, and yes, the behavior of its fandom. Likewise, one may also appreciate it for its epic storytelling, development, characterizations, twists and turns, story morals, poetic structure, and imagery.
• Comparing and contrasting it to other works in the same genre or genres. This does include mythology.
• Debating the pros and cons of the influence the work has had on society and children. People debate this all the time, not just when it comes to books, but also movies, music, video games, you name it.

One of the fairest assessments I've come across so far can be found on this site, which treats it as a work of literature and compares it to works of literature, as well as other types of media:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheBible

 

[Greediguts]

That does make sense in terms of the historical background Ezekiel is responding to, but that would still leave some confusion as to the meaning of the prophetic parts of chapter 11.

If you go back to verse 15, God is saying that the future of Israel is the exiles. The people remaining in Jerusalem were to be punished, but the exiles are told that the land of Israel will be given back to them. Those verses are a response to Ezekiel crying out to God.

"Now, while I was prophesying, Pelatiah son of Benaiah died. Then I fell down on my face, cried with a loud voice, and said, ‘Ah Lord God! will you make a full end of the remnant of Israel?"(Ezekiel 11:13)

Ezekiel is worried that God will destroy every last inhabitant of Jerusalem. God reassures him that the exiles will come back, reclaim the city and basically have a new covenant with God.

 

[Radrook]

I'll start with this one, because you obviously completely misunderstand the analysis.

The argument is not educated fisherman = impossible, but an educated fisherman in 1st century Judea where the literary rate (at best and among the wealthy) was 30% (probably closer to 10% at the time), is an extraordinarily unlikely find. Add to that, that said fisherman was specifically stated to be uneducated by the sources and we end up with -- John was almost assuredly uneducated.

It is not use of secretaries to dictate to = impossible, but that the work itself was the product of a highly educated individual, which, by the very sources you wish to use (namely Acts) did not include John. Assuming that John spoke through a secretary, this is not his work. It would be the work of the secretary. All the imagery and the strong emphasis on the logos would be introduced by the secretary, as it would be highly unlikely to have come from a lower class fisherman from the Galilee.

So you rule out the possibility of his availing himself of a scribe or secretary to dictate to even though you accuse him of being unable to write it down himself? Weird! I'm sure that under the same circumstances you would have resorted to a secretary or scribe. Can you pray tell why you refuse to accept that as a possibility.

It is not a person can acquire skills = impossible, but it is highly unlikely that an uneducated fisherman (documented in the very sources you wish to use) would acquire later in life the extraordinary skill not only to write but to think primarily in Greek, which at best would have been a second language. And not just in the Greek language, but actually using Greek tropes, invoking the logos. And all this at a time when certain areas in the former Jewish kingdom considered it unlawful for fathers to instruct their sons in Greek philosophy and Greek ways.

Unlikeliness does not constitute impossibility. Therefore the conclusions based on unlikeliness or likeliness don't hold much water in a court of law. That's why OJ got off Scott free. Actually, to claim certainty based on unlikeliness or likeliness is fallacious reasoning and a far more serious breach of cogent than what you accuse me of in your remarks below.

You can try each of the strawman techniques of converting an argument for the unlikely into an argument for the impossible all you like. But it is what it is -- a tottering tower of straw. If, at some point, you would like to discuss any of the ideas that I have actually expressed, please let me know, and we may proceed with an intelligent conversation.

Thanx for the invitation but the premise for the discussion is irrational from my standpoint and so I will leave that for those who are comfortable discussing those matters from that particular perspective.,

As for "strawman and totrings-yu" you are entitled to your opinion as I am to mine which is identical to yours in reference to your views.

BTW

Although Paul was educated and quite capable of writing his own letters, he still used scribes to write his accounts except one. Now to me that's far more extraordinarily unlikely than an uneducated or undereducated person seeking scribal assistance from among fellow believers.

Other things which strike me as extraordinarily unlikely is that the Jews would not use Jesus' being a figment of people's imagination as an argument against Christianity and instead would go about arguing that he was not the true Messiah. Or that the miracles he performed were done via demonic power.

Extraordinarily unlikely that Josephus and a Roman official should refer to Jesus as a real person if indeed he had been merely fictitious as some individuals claim.

It's also extraordinarily unlikely that a whole religious belief should have arisen based on a fictitious person's existence since such a story would have come immediately under attack as being false. Yet we don;t see that argument being used. Care to explain?

No, perhaps this particular argument hasn't come up on this thread but it is in full harmony with the general suspicious approach employed. And, since you seem so averse concerning things which to you seem extraordinarily unlikely, then I thought that perhaps these things would umm, tweak your sensitivities as well. But of course they don't do they?


Excerpt

WHO WRITES?
The actual writing of most of Paul's epistles was done by a scribe. Tertius identifies himself as the scribe for Romans


Rom 16:22 I Tertius, who wrote this epistle, salute you in the Lord.At the end of 1
Cor 16,

Paul takes the pen from his scribe and writes the final greeting in his own handwriting.


1 Cor 16:21 The salutation of me Paul with mine own hand. Paul is identifying himself AND Timothy as the writers of this letter. Paul is dictating and Timothy is writing.


2 Cor 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, unto the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints which are in all Achaia:Gal 6:11 Ye see how large a letter I have written unto you with mine own hand.


The apostle is not speaking of the length of the letter, for Galatians is not a long letter, but to the size of the letters he used as he took the pen from the hand of the scribe and wrote these closing words himself to impart greater impact speaking of the error of the Jews that teach that Gentiles must be circumcised. You could say he ended the letter in his own hand in Bold Type

Col 4:18 The salutation by the hand of me Paul. Remember my bonds. Grace be with you. Amen.

Again Paul writes the salutation (the greetings- the first three verses) and the scribe writes the rest.

The scribe is Timothy again.Col 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timotheus our brother,II Thess 3:17

The salutation of Paul with mine own hand, which is the token (sign) in every epistle: so I write. (that I write)Paul writes the WHOLE letter in his own hand. Notice that this is the shortest letter of all.

Phile 1:19 I Paul have written it with mine own hand, I will repay it: albeit I do not say to thee how thou owest unto me even thine own self besides.http://cnview.com/bible_study/the_apostle_paul.htm

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I'm sorry to be rude about this, but Radrook, do you have reading comprehension problems? Or did you simply think that putting a few words together that demonstrate that you did not understand what I wrote would help in this debate?

I suggest you return to what I actually wrote above. You will see that your entire post is completely unnecessary.

 

[Radrook]

I'm sorry to be rude about this, but Radrook, do you have reading comprehension problems? Or did you simply think that putting a few words together that demonstrate that you did not understand what I wrote would help in this debate?

I suggest you return to what I actually wrote above. You will see that your entire post is completely unnecessary.

The problem isn't reading comprehension, the problem is the inability of writers incapable of knowing that they are proposing premesis and showing astonishment when someone responds to the premesis they themselves proposed but of which they are tiotally unaware they are inadvertantly proposing. Which requires a backing up to explain to the proposer just where he proposed what he should already know he proposed if he'd been thinking clearly when proposing it.

BTW

No rudeness intended either

 

[Radrook]

Here is a partial additional response to the objections concerning John' authorship.

The "Simple Fisherman" Claim


Another criticism of Johannine authorship turns the very sophistication of the Gospel against it. Some declare that John bar-Zebedee, a mere fisherman, could not have been an educated, Greek-speaking theological genius and therefore could not have written such a theologically sophisticated work. Here’s the problem: The assumption that a Jewish fisherman living two thousand years ago couldn’t be multilingual, or educated, or a genius, or a contemplative—or all four—is a fine illustration of what C.S. Lewis used to refer to as "chronological snobbery." This is, roughly speaking, the notion that we are, by virtue of our blenders and hi-def TVs, 2,000 years smarter than people who lived in Jesus’ time; we are therefore comfortably ensconced on the final and permanent platform from which to look down on all human history. It is to forget something a reader of mine puckishly pointed out:
How could John have had time to take these courses, much less pay for them? I mean, Hebrew and Bar-Ilan wouldn’t even be founded for nearly 2,000 years! And where’d he pick up all that theology, if it was John? After all, John was spending all his free time running around with Jesus, so he wouldn’t have had time to study theology.
In other words, in the zeal to argue John was "just" a fisherman, the critic forgets that Paul was "just" a tentmaker, yet still had plenty of time to get educated. He forgets that native Aramaic speaker John lived in "Galilee of the Gentiles" and that the normal lingua franca of a tradesman at this crossroads of various civilizations was Koine Greek. http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2007/0711fea3.asp

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

The problem isn't reading comprehension, the problem is the inability of writers incapable of knowing that they are proposing premesis and showing astonishment when someone responds to the premesis they themselves proposed but of which they are tiotally unaware they are inadvertantly proposing. Which requires a backing up to explain to the proposer just where he proposed what he should already know he proposed if he'd been thinking clearly when proposing it.

BTW

No rudeness intended either

No, I'm afraid the only explanation is reading comprehension problems. Especially given your next post -- which I already addressed (and which does not address any of the real concerns; rather, it is baseless speculation). The problem with John being an educated fisherman is that he was specifically said to be uneducated.

I already addressed the scribe issue which you simply overlooked. If John used a scribe, then it was the scribe who most likely introduced the complex philosophical ideas and not John himself. Especially since John was specifically noted to be uneducated.

I have never argued that it is impossible for John to have been the author of the work. You created the "impossible" out of thin air. I argued that it is unlikely that he is the author. So, there is no need to tell me that unlikely does not equal impossible, since that was the thrust of my post.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I would also really like for you to explain to me how it is that you are magically uncovering my hidden assumptions when those supposed assumptions are things that I don't even believe to be true.


Seems a mighty trick.

 

[MIKILLINI]

Rad, you assume so much that your literal bias has made you literally unable to see the reason of this discussion.
This thread is not meant to discredit the bible or the theme of it, but to learn more of the history involved and possibly enhance more knowledge about it. But hey, if your going to continue with your ambiguous perception of this, the simple solution for you would be to just skip the thread.

 

[Greediguts]

Since some are discussing John, what does everyone make of these verses:

"Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; he was the one who had reclined next to Jesus at the supper and had said, "Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?" When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, "Lord, what about him?" Jesus said to him, "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? Follow me!" So the rumor spread in the community that this disciple would not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?"
This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true. But there are also many other things that Jesus did; if every one of them were written down, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written."(John 21:20-25)

Isn't the writer admitting they are not the author of part of the Fourth Gospel? The author also refers to himself as "we". Could this not imply that perhaps an early congregation of Christians made additions to John? Perhaps they made this addition to explain why this disciple was no longer living (Jesus could have kept him alive until the Second Coming if he wanted, but apparently he chose not to do so). This revisionist strategy could have been used to explain why Jesus had not yet returned...

Comments...??

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Since some are discussing John, what does everyone make of these verses:

"Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; he was the one who had reclined next to Jesus at the supper and had said, "Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?" When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, "Lord, what about him?" Jesus said to him, "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? Follow me!" So the rumor spread in the community that this disciple would not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?"
This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true. But there are also many other things that Jesus did; if every one of them were written down, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written."(John 21:20-25)

Isn't the writer admitting they are not the author of part of the Fourth Gospel? The author also refers to himself as "we". Could this not imply that perhaps an early congregation of Christians made additions to John? Perhaps they made this addition to explain why this disciple was no longer living (Jesus could have kept him alive until the Second Coming if he wanted, but apparently he chose not to do so). This revisionist strategy could have been used to explain why Jesus had not yet returned...

Comments...??

I think that's very likely. I would even go so far as to say that it is more likely that some person or group wrote this gospel entirely (not merely appending that bit on at the end) and not John (not even through Papius, who is sometimes suggested as a scribe of his).

It is very possible that there was an account that John left (we don't know that John is the beloved apostle anyway) and that this account may have served as background for what we have in our current gospel of John -- hence the, "and has written them" notation. But his possible writings are not what we have now, in my opinion.

Who would write himself into a gospel and refer to himself as 'the disciple that Jesus loved'? I think it is much more likely that someone else wrote this account based on earlier writings that may well go back to John, or one of the disciples. There seems to be some evidence of splintering of disciple groups -- Peter's camp, John's camp, Mary Magdalene's camp -- and this was probably written in John's group.

There is clear evidence of different folks following other leaders even in Paul's letters -- I follow Apollos, I follow Paul, etc.

 

[Radrook]

No, I'm afraid the only explanation is reading comprehension problems.

Oh, you mean that I respond to the implications of what is being said instead of the immediate issue. That's because the immediate issue is of far less importance than what it implies. Fort example questioning Moses as the writer of the Pentateuch automatically calls Jesus and the NT writers liars since they ascribe authorship to him. It also calls those who penned the OT manuscripts which attribute authorship to Moses liars. So I might respond by pointing this out because the implication of dishonesty from a Christian standpoint is far more important to Christians. Referring to Jesus the isn't a deviation from the subject. It's merely an extension of the subject beyond its immediate context to its logical conclusion-a conclusion which I am more than certain those who dedicate themselves to this sort of thing are fully aware of despite their claims to ignorance.

Especially given your next post -- which I already addressed (and which does not address any of the real concerns; rather, it is baseless speculation). The problem with John being an educated fisherman is that he was specifically said to be uneducated.

Actually, most Christian disciples were viewed as ignorant by the snob-nosed Pharisees. Maybe not Paul who was once a Pharasee. He was merely considered misguided. Or Luke who was a physician or perhaps not Matthew who was a tax collector. But where there's a will there's a way as the cliche goes. Paul was once called insane by a government official. Jesus was accused of being demon-possessed.

In any case, from as Christian standpoint, secular education is irrelevant since they believe men wrote or spoke [or dictated] while under divine inspiration. Additionally, the rellevant education necessary for the ministry was fully provided and Jesus' disciples lacked nothing. And as I said previously. Paul used scribes or secretaties. In view of that, I find it extremely unlikely that a less educated man, as you insist John had remained for the duration of his long life, would not make use of the same services. If indeed there is a logical reason why John would not have availed himself of such services then state it.

I already addressed the scribe issue which you simply overlooked. If John used a scribe, then it was the scribe who most likely introduced the complex philosophical ideas and not John himself. Especially since John was specifically noted to be uneducated.

Well, my answer was given above but let me add a few more salient points.


First:

You fail to mention is that the comment about being uneducated found in Acts is followed by a description of how the ones who thought the Apostles undereducated marveled at the way they expresssed themselves and that they then realized it was because they had been with Jesus.

Now when the Jewish leaders saw the boldness of Peter and John and found out that they were uneducated and ordinary men, they were amazed and realized that they had been with Jesus.
(Acts 4:13)

Second:

Sorry, but again your premise is false. Presidents regularly give speeches written for them and the speech isn't said to be the speech of the speech writer since it expresses the thoughts and ideas of the speaker. So your premise fails miserably from that perspective. Unless you can refute the fact that the concepts spoken by presidents and candidates, such as Obama and other politicians aren't' theirs but are the concepts of the speechwriters because-umm, well, a heh ! heh! they wrote them. Which is of course absurd.


BTW
Take that a step further and all dictaded letters are the secretaries' and not really from the person who dictated. So you can see how one ludicrous idea generates another.

I have never argued that it is impossible for John to have been the author of the work. You created the "impossible" out of thin air. I argued that it is unlikely that he is the author. So, there is no need to tell me that unlikely does not equal impossible, since that was the thrust of my post.

Not just unlikely, "Highly Unlikely" which is vastly different from a mere "unlikely".


As close as you can get to saying impossible without actually saying it.

In short, your "highly unlikely" remarks come across as totally opposed the idea of John's authorship. Which from my perspective smacks of claiming 100% impossibility. Like an agnostic casually claiming neutrality in reference to ID but then vehemently arguing that it's highly unlikely that a creator exists. Same difference-as they say.

He nullifies his previous casual commenyt his vehement latter one. In short-it amounts to double talk. or as the American Indians said "Speaking with a forked tongue."

 

[Radrook]

Rad, you assume so much that your literal bias has made you literally unable to see the reason of this discussion.

Maybe I see more than what you think I see.

This thread is not meant to discredit the bible or the theme of it, but to learn more of the history involved and possibly enhance more knowledge about it.

Uh hummm!

But hey, if your going to continue with your ambiguous perception of this, the simple solution for you would be to just skip the thread.

Good advice about skipping. Be glad to as long as I'm not asked a direct question or my commentary isn't twisted into pretzel shapes. That's what got me involved against my better judgement in the first place. Anyway, thaqnks for the advice. : )

 

[Madalch]

For example questioning Moses as the writer of the Pentateuch automatically calls Jesus and the NT writers liars since they ascribe authorship to him. It also calls those who penned the OT manuscripts which attribute authorship to Moses liars.

Well, I suppose if you consider that the authors of the Bible were divinely inspired by God who has perfect knowledge, then any part of the Bible that is not literally true would make God a liar.

I suddenly understand how some people can think that the Bible is literally true. If they haven't actually read it.

Wouldn't it be easier to accept that Jesus did not have the perfect knowledge that God has, and that perhaps he was speaking to the best of his knowledge? So he referred to Moses as the author of the Pentateuch
because everyone else considered Moses to be so, and not because he had looked back through time to confirm this act? That he referred to the mustard seed as "the smallest of seeds" because it was the smallest one he could think of at the time, and not because he was lying about the non-existence of smaller seeds?

I wouldn't accuse Newton or Maxwell of lying because they said that light consisted of particles or waves, even though they were both wrong according to modern physics. I can't see how anyone could consider Jesus to be a liar for not having perfect knowledge.

Even if he did have perfect knowledge, it's perfectly possible to be misquoted.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Oh, you mean that I respond to the implications of what is being said instead of the immediate issue.

No, I meant exactly what I said, not what you seem to think I mean through some weird haze of misdirection.

Fort example questioning Moses as the writer of the Pentateuch automatically calls Jesus and the NT writers liars since they ascribe authorship to him. It also calls those who penned the OT manuscripts which attribute authorship to Moses liars. So I might respond by pointing this out because the implication of dishonesty from a Christian standpoint is far more important to Christians. Referring to Jesus the isn't a deviation from the subject. It's merely an extension of the subject beyond its immediate context to its logical conclusion-a conclusion which I am more than certain those who dedicate themselves to this sort of thing are fully aware of despite their claims to ignorance.

And that is a totally useless analogy, unless you want to argue the absolute literal truth of every single part of the Bible with no contradictions even being possible -- a completely untenable position.

Let's look at what you actually have done rather than what you say you are doing.

First, you accused me of reaching wrong conclusions because of my original undeclared assumption of godlessness. Then, you decided that godlessness was not the problem.

Then, you decided that the problem was my approach, which you identified as being skeptical of the Bible alone and nothing else. This is such a ludicrously stupid proposition that I cannot believe you haven't retracted it. I invite you, no, I plead with you to check a bare fraction of the posts I have made in this forum alone to see if I am skeptical of anything other than the Bible. My entire job consists of skepticism since I am daily presented with problems that are hidden, diagnosis that may be wrong, etc. I am skeptical of many things, and, yes, this includes abiogenesis. There is a reason why I know the evidence supporting that idea -- there is no reason to accept it without evidence.

Now you insist that I claim that it is impossible for John to have been the author of the gospel of John when I made no such argument.

What are going to accuse me of next? The Lindbergh kidnapping?

Actually, most Christian disciples were viewed as ignorant by the snob-nosed Pharisees. Maybe not Paul who was once a Pharasee. He was merely considered misguided. Or Luke who was a physician or perhaps not Matthew who was a tax collector. But where there's a will there's a way as the cliche goes. Paul was once called insane by a government official. Jesus was accused of being demon-possessed.

In any case, from as Christian standpoint, secular education is irrelevant since they believe men wrote or spoke [or dictated] while under divine inspiration. Additionally, the rellevant education necessary for the ministry was fully provided and Jesus' disciples lacked nothing. And as I said previously. Paul used scribes or secretaties. In view of that, I find it extremely unlikely that a less educated man, as you insist John had remained for the duration of his long life, would not make use of the same services. If indeed there is a logical reason why John would not have availed himself of such services then state it.

What possible difference could any of that make.

1. I have never argued that John could not have used a scribe. In fact, I argued quite the opposite. How can you continue to repeat this claptrap unless you haven't read what I wrote or you do have reading comprehension issues?

2. It wasn't scribes or Pharisees or Sudducees that mentioned John as being uneducated. It was the author of Luke and Acts -- a Christian.

3. The point about his lack of education as it relates to a scribe is that the highly educated nature of that gospel makes it very unlikely that John was its originator. All of the flourishes in that gospel would more likely have originated with the scribe, so the work, properly speaking, would be theirs and not John's.

You fail to mention is that the comment about being uneducated found in Acts is followed by a description of how the ones who thought the Apostles undereducated marveled at the way they expresssed themselves and that they then realized it was because they had been with Jesus.

Now when the Jewish leaders saw the boldness of Peter and John and found out that they were uneducated and ordinary men, they were amazed and realized that they had been with Jesus.
(Acts 4:13)

I didn't fail to mention it. It isn't particularly relevant. If you want to argue that John wrote the gospel because the Holy Spirit pulled off a miracle, then be my guest. That is essentially what you are reduced to.

And let's examine what that means...........oh, yeah, it is highly unlikely that John wrote it. So unlikely that it would take a miracle. In fact, it would mean that John didn't write it. The Holy Spirit is responsible for its contents. Boy, are you helping your case out here. Why would you even need to suggest that John had anything to do with it? If you want to argue that the Holy Spirit is responsible, then you needn't even apply for apostolic input. It's all God's work after all, isn't it?

Sorry, but again your premise is false. Presidents regularly give speeches written for them and the speech isn't said to be the speech of the speech writer since it expresses the thoughts and ideas of the speaker. So your premise fails miserably from that perspective. Unless you can refute the fact that the concepts spoken by presidents and candidates, such as Obama and other politicians aren't' theirs but are the concepts of the speechwriters because-umm, well, a heh ! heh! they wrote them. Which is of course absurd.

You are completely missing the point. The complex ideas as expressed in that gospel wouldn't likely have originated with an uneducated fisherman, especially since many of the ideas and conversations depend on the Greek language and Greek philosophy. At best, John, if he had anything to do with this, could have provided some of the background stories but not the vaulted language.

Explain to me how it is that Jesus, who came from the Galilee, when discussing theology with Nicodemus, also a Jew, speaks in Greek and not Aramaic?

Take that a step further and all dictaded letters are the secretaries' and not really from the person who dictated. So you can see how one ludicrous idea generates another.

Please, I beg of you, go back and read what I wrote. I'm really tiring of correcting your terrible misrepresentations.

Not just unlikely, "Highly Unlikely" which is vastly different from a mere "unlikely".


As close as you can get to saying impossible without actually saying it.

In short, your "highly unlikely" remarks come across as totally opposed the idea of John's authorship. Which from my perspective smacks of claiming 100% impossibility. Like an agnostic casually claiming neutrality in reference to ID but then vehemently arguing that it's highly unlikely that a creator exists. Same difference-as they say.

He nullifies his previous casual commenyt his vehement latter one. In short-it amounts to double talk. or as the American Indians said "Speaking with a forked tongue."

You can't possibly be serious. You are the one who said that I argued "impossible" when I never did. Now your analysis consists of "I don't like that you don't think John wrote that work"?

You made a claim and you were called to task. You were wrong. That you don't like my analysis which is supported with evidence I can't help.

Frankly, I don't care if my remarks strike you as totally opposed to John's authorship. That's your problem.

 

[Radrook]

No, I meant exactly what I said, not what you seem to think I mean through some weird haze of misdirection.

Today I will copy all your recent posts, examine them minutely to see just where it is that you say I have gone wrong and will get back to you on it. If I have misrepresented you I will admit it and apologize. Fair enough?

And that is a totally useless analogy, unless you want to argue the absolute literal truth of every single part of the Bible with no contradictions even being possible -- a completely untenable position.

I really don't see what the specific doubting of Moses' authorship has to do with every minute detail you mention. Furthermore, the reason that the Bible appears to have millions of contradictions is because people invent millions of excuses on how to misunderstand it.


I could give you dozens of examples where skeptics hell bent on casting doubts reach the most ridiculous conclusions about easily explainable details. One way the get caught up in that sport of thing is by arbitrarily tagging all alternate explanations as highly unlikely.

Let's look at what you actually have done rather than what you say you are doing. First, you accused me of reaching wrong conclusions because of my original undeclared assumption of godlessness. Then, you decided that godlessness was not the problem.

I clarified what I had meant by godlessness.

Then, you decided that the problem was my approach, which you identified as being skeptical of the Bible alone and nothing else.

No, I'm sure you are quite capable of applying your brand of skepticism to any other type of religious book or literature besides the Bible. However, I really don't think that skeptics are as stringent with evolutionist claims no matter how far fetched they might be. Instead they tend to assume credibility. When the trust is proven to be unwarranted, they then say it's all part of the scientific method even though it isn't. That's what I was referring to. However, if I reference to you specifically I was wrong since I don't know you enough to make that kind of accusation.

This is such a ludicrously stupid proposition that I cannot believe you haven't retracted it. I invite you, no, I plead with you to check a bare fraction of the posts I have made in this forum alone to see if I am skeptical of anything other than the Bible. My entire job consists of skepticism since I am daily presented with problems that are hidden, diagnosis that may be wrong, etc. I am skeptical of many things, and, yes, this includes abiogenesis. There is a reason why I know the evidence supporting that idea -- there is no reason to accept it without evidence.

Again sorry if I hastily lumped you into a general category. However, please note that what you accept as evidence others might consider insufficient unwarranted assumptions.

Now you insist that I claim that it is impossible for John to have been the author of the gospel of John when I made no such argument.

I clarified that in my last statement. I said that the "highly unlikely" argument comes across as a claim to impossibility. Not that the words themselves taken out of context would
do that, but within the context of the subject they do. In short, it is an idiomatic expression often used to express certainty. So many people would take it that way. I guess I was one.
But if you didn't mean it that way-OK.

What are going to accuse me of next? The Lindbergh kidnapping?

: )

What possible difference could any of that make.

1. I have never argued that John could not have used a scribe. In fact, I argued quite the opposite. How can you continue to repeat this claptrap unless you haven't read what I wrote or you do have reading comprehension issues?

I think this comes under the "highly unlikely" category explanation above.

2. It wasn't scribes or Pharisees or Sudducees that mentioned John as being uneducated. It was the author of Luke and Acts -- a Christian.

Of course!

3. The point about his lack of education as it relates to a scribe is that the highly educated nature of that gospel makes it very unlikely that John was its originator. All of the flourishes in that gospel would more likely have originated with the scribe, so the work, properly speaking, would be theirs and not John's.

Oh, you mean in the way the presidential speechwriters prepare speeches for presidents and candidates and that makes it highly unlikely that the thoughts are the candidates because they have flourishes that the candidates wouldn't express? Never heard that argument leveled at any presidential address or speech. Have you?

I didn't fail to mention it. It isn't particularly relevant. If you want to argue that John wrote the gospel because the Holy Spirit pulled off a miracle, then be my guest. That is essentially what you are reduced to.

I don't use that as an argument. I merely mentioned it in passing. You want to reduce it to that. Not me.

And let's examine what that means...........oh, yeah, it is highly unlikely that John wrote it. So unlikely that it would take a miracle. In fact, it would mean that John didn't write it. The Holy Spirit is responsible for its contents. Boy, are you helping your case out here. Why would you even need to suggest that John had anything to do with it? If you want to argue that the Holy Spirit is responsible, then you needn't even apply for apostolic input. It's all God's work after all, isn't it?

As I said above, that was mentioned in passing. The one insisting on making that a main issue is you. In any case, a secretary is given certain leeway. In the case of the gospels and other inspired writings, God could have given the ideas and permitted his secretaries to express them. In short, their personalities would be evident as well as their humanity. So I see absolutely no insurmountable obstacles here if indeed I were to argue from that viewpoint.

You are completely missing the point. The complex ideas as expressed in that gospel wouldn't likely have originated with an uneducated fisherman, especially since many of the ideas and conversations depend on the Greek language and Greek philosophy. At best, John, if he had anything to do with this, could have provided some of the background stories but not the vaulted language.

One doesn't disqualify a dictation on that basis unless the scribe or secretary has seriously deviated from what the author intended to be written. I see no evidence indicating that the scribe deviated and made the message unchristian or pagan. If you think that it was made unchristian or pagan, and should be considered unacceptable from a Christian standpoint based on that please give an example.

Explain to me how it is that Jesus, who came from the Galilee, when discussing theology with Nicodemus, also a Jew, speaks in Greek and not Aramaic?

Wasn't Koine Greek used at that time as well? I'm bilingual myself and constantly shift between two languages both in thought and in conversations. Perhaps it seems strange from the perspective of those limited to a single language or who know one language well and the other barely. But it doesn't seem strange from the perspective of those who can handle two or more languages with ease.


[quoe]Please, I beg of you, go back and read what I wrote. I'm really tiring of correcting your terrible misrepresentations.[/quote]

Although I don't consider them misrepresentations I will do so. Probablbly be able to get back to you on it tommorow.

You can't possibly be serious. You are the one who said that I argued "impossible" when I never did. Now your analysis consists of "I don't like that you don't think John wrote that work"?

No, my argument consists on your illogical penchant for dismissing possibilities and preferring to cast doubts instead via portraying such possibilities as highly unlikely when they are not.

You made a claim and you were called to task. You were wrong. That you don't like my analysis which is supported with evidence I can't help.

Sorry but I see no convincing evidence. Also, you are the one who seems upset because I don't accept your so-called evidence as very likely indisputable fact.

Frankly, I don't care if my remarks strike you as totally opposed to John's authorship. That's your problem.

No problem. Everyone is entitled to an opinion.

 

[Radrook]

Questions For Bible Skeptics who Question Jesus Existed

If Jesus never existed why did the Jews not use it as an argument? Instead of saying that he failed to fulfill prophecy as they understand it.

If Jesus never accomplished miracles why don't the Jews deny them instead of claiming that he did them via Satan?

If Jesus never existed why did Josephus and a Roman official mention him, his death and even the Roman procurator involved Pontius Pilate.

If Jesus was never crucified then why didn't the Jews deny it instead of claiming that his body was removed from the tomb by his disciples?

BTW

Biblical suspicionists once claimed Pontius Pilate never existed until it was proven otherwise. Then they hunkered down in order to come up with something else to suspect.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Today I will copy all your recent posts, examine them minutely to see just where it is that you say I have gone wrong and will get back to you on it. If I have misrepresented you I will admit it and apologize. Fair enough?

Fair enough.

I really don't see what the specific doubting of Moses' authorship has to do with every minute detail you mention. Furthermore, the reason that the Bible appears to have millions of contradictions is because people invent millions of excuses on how to misunderstand it.

I never mentioned doubting Moses' authorship so you've once again lumped me in with others, not that I believe that one person (Moses or otherwise) wrote the entire Pentateuch. I simply have not made that argument here and don't tend to argue it in any case.

The reason that the Bible appears to have contradictions is because it contains contradictions. No big deal there.

I could give you dozens of examples where skeptics hell bent on casting doubts reach the most ridiculous conclusions about easily explainable details. One way the get caught up in that sport of thing is by arbitrarily tagging all alternate explanations as highly unlikely.

I'm sure you could. There are also may contradictions that have the merest patina of apologetics that do not touch the actual contradiction, but that is for another thread.

No, I am sure you are quite capable of applying your brand of skepticism to any other type of religious book or literature besides the Bible. However, I really don't think that skeptics are as stringent with evolutionist claims no matter how far fetched they might be. Instead they tend to assume credibility. When the trust is proven to be unwarranted, they then say it's all part of the scientific method even though it isn't. That's what I was referring to. However, if I reference to you specifically I was wrong since I don't know you enough to make that kind of accusation.

My skepticism is not limited to religious issues. As long as you recognize that fact we have no quibble as my skepticism is often applied to evolution and other areas of science (particularly medicine, which is my field). Again, there is a reason why we know the information that supports evolutionary theory -- because we have questioned it. There is a reason why I read Darwin's Black Box before I knew what it contained -- because it was marketed as a challenge to Darwin and I wanted to know what that challenge was, because that would have been highly significant if the argument held water. It didn't, so I was disappointed, but the intellectual exercise was worth it.

Again sorry if I hastily lumped you into a general category. However, please note that what you accept as evidence others might consider insufficient unwarranted assumptions.

No problem. That attitude is always welcome.

I clarified that in my last statement. I said that the "highly unlikely" argument comes across as a claim to impossibility. Not that the words themselves taken out of context would
do that, but within the context of the subject they do. In short, it is an idiomatic expression often used to express certainty. So many people would take it that way. I guess I was one.
But if you didn't mean it that way-OK.

OK, so let me reiterate -- I did not mean it that way. I meant it as 'highly unlikely" because there are several factors that argue against that possibility. Highly unlikely does not mean impossible to me.

Oh, you mean in the way the presidential speechwriters prepare speeches for presidents and candidates and that makes it highly unlikely that the thoughts are the candidates because they have flourishes that the candidates wouldn't express? Never heard that argument leveled at any presidential address or speech. Have you?

No, that is not what I mean. Again, what I am saying is that the character of the work would be highly different from what an illiterate fisherman would be expected to create, so it would be more proper to speak of this as the work of the scribe. One possibility would be that there was no John to begin with. Another would be that there was a John and he had nothing to do with the gospel. Another would be that John left behind an oral or written account on which the gospel was loosely based -- for instance, he could have left behind some of the stories and a group of people or one person could have created from this the gospel that we know. Another would be that John directly dictated every word in the gospel (with the exception of the additions that are fairly well documented).

Of those possibilities I consider most likely that there was a disciple named John who left behind an account that was significantly altered into the gospel that we know today. I would not consider him the author of that work but merely a contributor to it. But that is simply my opinion based on what I consider the likely possibilities. It certainly explains the final verses of the gospel.

I don't use that as an argument. I merely mentioned it in passing. You want to reduce it to that. Not me.

Fair enough. I'm not reducing it to anything. You offered it. If you meant it merely in passing, then that's fine.

One doesn't disqualify a dictation on that basis unless the scribe or secretary has seriously deviated from what the author intended to be written. I see no evidence indicating that the scribe deviated and made the message unchristian or pagan. If you think that it was made unchristian or pagan, and should be considered unacceptable from a Christian standpoint based on that please give an example.

That simply is not the way that I see it. I am not in any way suggesting that the author of John would have created an unChristian work or a pagan work. In fact, I would argue exactly the opposite -- the intention of John's gospel as with all the gospels was to promote Christianity. They are the very definition of Christian works. The issue at hand is whether or not this is John's work. I do not think it very likely that most of what is in that gospel originated directly from the mind of an uneducated fisherman. I think it much more likely that there were other contributing sources -- to the point that I don't think it is correct to say that it is John's gospel. It is much more likely, in my opinion, as I previously stated, that it was based on previous oral or written tradition that likely included testimony from John -- which would explain why it is associated with him.

Whatever the explanation, as a literary production, it is not an eyewitness account.

Wasn't Koine Greek used at that time as well? I'm bilingual myself and constantly shift between two languages both in thought and in conversations. Perhaps it seems strange from the perspective of those limited to a single language or who know one language well and the other barely. But it doesn't seem strange from the perspective of those who can handle two or more languages with ease.

Of course Koine Greek was used at the time. It was the lingua franca of the upper classes and used widely in the marketplace (much like English is today in the business world). But the discussion between Jesus and Nicodemus was between a Galilean preacher and a rabbi where Aramaic would have been the language used.

The most likely possibility is that many people knew Greek at the time, but they knew it as a second language and not particularly well -- basically enough to get by. This is speculation, of course, but it is based on the fact that there was a backlash in many of the Jewish communities against Greek ideas and Greek ways (possibly even against the language) around that time. It was part of the purity thing always important in Jewish communities at the time.

It would have been highly unlikely that Jesus and Nicodemus would have spoken in Greek. It is much more likely, in my book, that the author of John, a Greek speaker, would create that conversation for theological purposes. It speaks an important theological lesson from a Christian perspective. The conversation makes sense in Greek. It doesn't make sense in Aramaic.

No, my argument consists on your illogical penchant for dismissing possibilities and preferring to cast doubts instead via portraying such possibilities as highly unlikely when they are not.

Well, this is one of your misrepresentations. I have not dismissed possibilities. I have assigned likelihoods to possibilities only. I have provided arguments why I consider those possibilities unlikely and others likely. I can't do any more than that.

Sorry but I see no convincing evidence. Also, you are the one who seems upset because I don't accept your so-called evidence as very likely indisputable fact.

I have no idea why you think I'm trying to convince you of anything except that I don't agree with your statements that:

1. The basic assumption of the recent arguments in this thread is godlessness.

2. I only question the Bible and nothing else, especially not anything science based.

3. I have argued that it is impossible for John to have been the author of the gospel assigned to him.

I don't care what you believe or want to believe as the guiding force in your life. At the end of days, that is your concern and not mine. I simply disagreed with certain statements that you made, plain and simple. There is nothing else behind my side of this recent argument.

As to the discussion that Piggy, Greediguts, Hokulele, myself and others were conducting -- that was only a literary discussion of the biblical material from a particular perspective (specifically, an historical perspective). Whether or not it is correct is a whole other matter. I know that Piggy and I see it as an exercise that might help understanding, and I suspect that others view it in the same way. There simply is nothing else behind it, whatever force you wish to see in it.