Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

[Simon39759]

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.

What you seems no to understand is that the putative John refers to the apostles as 'they'; not at 'us'.
This has nothing to do with identifying himself. He is simply not writing as if he was there.

 

[kmortis]

OMG, would somebody please put a wooden stake through this thread's heart and bury it at a crossroads?

No kidding, right? We were having a nice little session of Beer Talk and here come ol' DOC stormin' on in with this Bible crap.


BRING BACK THE BEER TALK!!!!

 

[six7s]

No kidding, right? We were having a nice little session of Beer Talk and here come ol' DOC stormin' on in with this Bible crap.


BRING BACK THE BEER TALK!!!!

Or...

Or some evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth

 

[Niggle]

*Note to self - remember to include sarcasm smiley.*

Note to self - me, too.

 

[DOC]

What you seems no to understand is that the putative John refers to the apostles as 'they'; not at 'us'.
This has nothing to do with identifying himself. He is simply not writing as if he was there.

I once had a girlfriend who when sometimes talking to me talked about me in the third person. It does happen. This might have been his style. Even Jesus talked about himself in the third person and from my memory rarely if ever used "we or I".

And although John seemed to have some writing talent, it is certainly possible he never had a grammar course.

Also, this could be a way to throw off any Romans looking for another Christian to crucify. And Legend has it that John was boiled in oil by the authorities (as well as being condemned to the isle of Patmos). So if John was understandably trying to be throw off the authorities by his writing style, it didn't totally work.

 

[Hokulele]

I once had a girlfriend who when sometimes talking to me talked about me in the third person. It does happen. This might have been his style. Even Jesus talked about himself in the third person and from my memory rarely if ever used "we or I".

And although John seemed to have some writing talent, it is certainly possible he never had a grammar course.

Also, this could be a way to throw off any Romans looking for another Christian to crucify. And Legend has it that John was boiled in oil by the authorities (as well as being condemned to the isle of Patmos). So if John was understandably trying to be throw off the authorities by his writing style, it didn't totally work.

Umm, yeah. Sure.

Or, the vast majority of the gospel of John is simply hearsay.

 

[joobz]

I once had a girlfriend who when sometimes talking to me talked about me in the third person. It does happen. This might have been his style. Even Jesus talked about himself in the third person and from my memory rarely if ever used "we or I".

And although John seemed to have some writing talent, it is certainly possible he never had a grammar course.

Also, this could be a way to throw off any Romans looking for another Christian to crucify. And Legend has it that John was boiled in oil by the authorities (as well as being condemned to the isle of Patmos). So if John was understandably trying to be throw off the authorities by his writing style, it didn't totally work.

Or he was just too interested in Jesus' breasts to care about the writing style?

 

[Lothian]

I once had a girlfriend who when sometimes talking to me talked about me in the third person. It does happen.

So you think it is a sign they were lovers?

Even Jesus talked about himself in the third person and from my memory rarely if ever used "we or I".

Wow, you remember Jesus talking

And although John seemed to have some writing talent, it is certainly possible he never had a grammar course.

If he existed the chances are he couldn't write.

Also, this could be a way to throw off any Romans looking for another Christian to crucify. And Legend has it that John was boiled in oil by the authorities (as well as being condemned to the isle of Patmos). So if John was understandably trying to be throw off the authorities by his writing style, it didn't totally work.

It is far more likely that he didn't write it.

 

[paximperium]

Or he was just too interested in Jesus' breasts to care about the writing style?

Bad mental image

 

[Simon39759]

I once had a girlfriend who when sometimes talking to me talked about me in the third person. It does happen. This might have been his style. Even Jesus talked about himself in the third person and from my memory rarely if ever used "we or I".

And although John seemed to have some writing talent, it is certainly possible he never had a grammar course.

Also, this could be a way to throw off any Romans looking for another Christian to crucify. And Legend has it that John was boiled in oil by the authorities (as well as being condemned to the isle of Patmos). So if John was understandably trying to be throw off the authorities by his writing style, it didn't totally work.

With enough special pleading, you can explain anything away, of course.

He did not write in the first person. The gospels include style and information that indicate that they were written at least one generation after the facts. They contradict each others on several points. They mention events that are highly unlikely to ever have happened (massacre of the innocent; the Sanhedrin meeting on the last night of the Passover festival; Pilate forced to obey the Sanhedrin).

You can explain them away if you try hard enough. The most likely though, and by far, is that a big chunk, if not the totality, of the story was made up after the facts.

 

[kmortis]

Bad mental image

/me hands pax the brain bleach.

Here, this'll help.

 

[joobz]

* kmortis;4838420 hands pax the brain bleach.

Here, this'll help.

I'm countering your brain bleach with picture goodness.

 

[kmortis]

I'm countering your brain bleach with picture goodness.

Ooo! can we have a captioning contest?

"Oh, you like that, don'tcha?"

 

[joobz]

Ooo! can we have a captioning contest?

"Oh, you like that, don'tcha?"

Brokeback Golgotha.

 

[arthwollipot]

Brokeback Golgotha.

You're a bad, bad man.

 

[DOC]

He {John} did not write in the first person.

John 21;25 is in first person. And as I already pointed out even Jesus had referred to himself in third person. Example: (Paraphrasing) Foxes have their holes but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay down.

The gospels include style and information that indicate that they were written at least one generation after the facts. They contradict each others on several points. They mention events that are highly unlikely to ever have happened (massacre of the innocent; the Sanhedrin meeting on the last night of the Passover festival; Pilate forced to obey the Sanhedrin).

I've already responded to all of these points throughout this thread.

You can explain them away if you try hard enough. The most likely though, and by far, is that a big chunk, if not the totality, of the story was made up after the facts.

Well if this is true then the lying deceiving authors were good enough to get Thomas Jefferson to spend a lot of time cutting and pasting their lies and saying the teachings (or as you believe lies) were the most sublime and moral known to man.

 

[zooterkin]

Well if this is true then the lying deceiving authors were good enough to get Thomas Jefferson to spend a lot of time cutting and pasting their lies and saying the teachings (or as you believe lies) were the most sublime and moral known to man.

You've got it backwards, it was the lies he left out...

 

[joobz]

John 21;25 is in first person.

John 21:25 IS first person.
John 21:24 isn't. It's clear that the author isn't refering to himself here.

And as I already pointed out even Jesus had referred to himself in third person. Example: (Paraphrasing) Foxes have their holes but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay down.

It's funny that you reference Matthew 8:20 to support Jesus' talk in the third person. I mean, I thought you said Jesus was the Son of God? But here, we clearly see Jesus refer to himself as the Son of man.

Not to mention the fact that Matthew 8:21-22 shows Jesus in one of his more Jerky roles as family divider.

" 21And another of his disciples said unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father.
22But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead. "

 

[Hokulele]

John 21:25 IS first person.
John 21:24 isn't. It's clear that the author isn't refering to himself here.

Half right. In John 21:24, "this disciple" is third person, likely talking about someone other than John, "we know" is first person (well, a collective first person) making it quite clear that the author of the gospel isn't the disciple...

...or has multiple peronality disorder.

 

[joobz]

Half right. In John 21:24, "this disciple" is third person, likely talking about someone other than John, "we know" is first person (well, a collective first person) making it quite clear that the author of the gospel isn't the disciple...

...or has multiple peronality disorder.

If I was fully right on John 21:25 and only have right on John 21:24, doesn't that make my post 75% right?