-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.
- Thread starter DOC
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bible evidence new testament
- Status
It made perfect sense for John not to refer to himself by name. Being the last of the living apostles, he was almost certainly aware that all of his fellow apostles had been martyred. Why advertise who you are to the brutal Romans who would think nothing of killing a Christian writer. Even after doing this, he still ended up getting banished to the island of Patmos.
If you were a Jewish writer in Nazi Germany in 1940 would you use your real name to write about things you knew the Nazis could kill or jail you for. Why not live to write or preach another day.
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
That wasn't even close to my question. Why does John refer to himself in the third person part of the time?
Um, no. Different John altogether.
I certainly wouldn't refer to myself in the first person part of the time and the third person part of the time. Unless I had certain mental conditions including delusions of grandeur.
What swaths of the Old Testament were written "for" polytheists. Name the Chapters and explain why they were written for Polytheists.
Where did John ever use his name in his Gospel?
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
joobz
Tergiversator
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 17,998
That link is broken, try this one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_(god)
It's a short article, you can see the clear connection.
Last edited:
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
Heh, your link is broken as well.
This might work.
ETA: Never mind, you fixed the link. I will leave this up anyway.
DOC, are you suggesting that a link to an article that specifically lists the biblical passages and shows the translations doesn't answer your question? If that is the case, please provide evidence that the NT writers told the truth. And by the way, by your new rules, a link to Geisler's book doesn't count.
joobz
Tergiversator
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 17,998
Ouch! DOC's only been back a couple hours and he's already dug himself into a logical hole.
What book of John are you talking about? What verses does he refer to himself in first person and what verses 3rd person?
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
The gospel that you were claiming to be eyewitness testimony on the part of John.
John 21:24-25 is in the first person ("We know", "I suppose"). Most of the rest of the gospel either refers to the disciples as a group in the third person, or makes mention of "the beloved desciple". If the beloved disciple isn't John, well, then the whole thing is hearsay rather than a firsthand account.
Have you actually read that gospel?
Mojo
Mostly harmless
21:24 starts with it appearing that the author claims to be "the disciple" mentioned in the preceding passage: "This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things". Pretty dumb if he was trying to conceal his identity. On the other hand it ends by talking about him in the third person: "we know that his testimony is true" (no, DOC, that is not evidence that the New Testament writers told the truth).
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
Well, that's not quite how those verses should be interpreted, the KJV is almost impossible to parse at times. The RSV makes it a bit more clear what is meant. The writer is claiming that there is a "beloved disciple", who is never directly named, that was with Jesus at the very end, and is suggested to still be alive when Jesus returns (although Jesus does use weasel words to get around any claims that that disciple won't actually die, or something).
The author of John then states that it is this disciple (i.e., the one who was hanging around at the very end) that saw and wrote about all of the stuff. Not that the beloved disciple was necessarily John. So now either John wasn't the beloved disciple (meaning he wasn't an eyewitness after all and this is all hearsay), or he was and like you said, isn't trying to conceal his identity as DOC is trying to claim.
Either way, it doesn't make sense to claim that this is evidence of John's authorship and none of it addresses the weirdness that is the mixed points of view.
ETA: In fact, many scholars see this as hard evidence that John wasn't an eyewitness to any of Jesus' antics.
Last edited:
joobz
Tergiversator
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 17,998
After reading that, I get the idea that this beloved disciple was a bit more than friends with Jesus. Especially when you read the section that was being referenced (John 13:21-30).
Simon39759
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2009
- Messages
- 2,285
And we have the fact that Jesus was unmarried and childless; and the fact that, according to Phillip, the apostles were jealous about Jesus kissing Magdalena. We also have the 'naked young boy' that spends the night with Jesus in the gnostic gospels.
Who knows? But I doubt it to be Robertson's favourite passage from the gospels.
ETA: Maybe Pilate was right, after all
Who knows? But I doubt it to be Robertson's favourite passage from the gospels.
ETA: Maybe Pilate was right, after all
Last edited:
Not really. Since John never mentions himself by name, the authorities (who would think nothing of killing a Christian writer) would have a hard time figuring out who the author is but he still manages to give enough info so many Christians of the day who were familiar with the other gospels would have a good idea it was John. Christians of the day used other code symbols (possibly to prevent detection by the Romans), for example a picture of a fish as a symbol of Christianity, and the word Babylon as a code name for Rome. The bible says (Be wise as a serpent, but harmless as a dove). You had to be wise (and brave) to get the message out living under Roman occupation.
Last edited:
- Status