FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-04-2001, 06:34 PM   #61
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

quote:rodahi
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
There are good reasons for supposing that John the son of Zebedee WAS NOT the writer of "John."
1. There is no evidence to suggest that John could speak Greek. (As a native of Galilee, he more than likely spoke Aramaic.)
2. According to Mark 1:19-20, John was a common fisherman, not a professional writer.
3. John was unable to read and write. This is confirmed in Acts 4:13.
4. Jesus gave the name "sons of thunder" to John and his brother. This indicates the brothers were quick to anger and possibly violent at times. The writer of the narrative appears to have just the opposite type of personality


quote:rodahi
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
truthseekar: 1 he didn`t need to (if he used a scribe or interpritor.)

Where is your evidence that JOZ used a scribe or interpretor? Just because it is possible, it isn't necessarily so.

truthseekar: 2 considering scribes (this becomes iralivant)

How is it irrelevant? Whoever wrote the narrative could formulate a highly-developed theology. What makes you think an illiterate Galilean fisherman could eloquently articulate the deep theological ideas found in the narrative?

truthseekar: 3 this also becomes erralivent.

It is relevant. See no. 2.

truthseekar: 4 or he gave it to them because of there zeal ( i think thay were linked with john the baptised , this could be a result of that zeal.)

Do you mean the kind of "zeal" that would cause them to ask if they could kill hundreds of people?

truthseekar: sorry rodahi, but unless you have more evidence I think I`ll stay with the way I see it for now until someone comes up with better evidence than these points.

I am never surprised by the remarks of those who made up their minds long ago. You have every right to believe the impossible, the improbable, and the absurd.

truthseekar: also consider the day of pentacost in acts ch 2 when thay spoke in other tounges and prophesyed in many tounges so as to amaze those around , because thay heard the works of god in there own langage from a bunch of gallileans ( just like the prophets of old , ie king saul and elisha.)

What does this have to do with who wrote "John?"

rodahi

 
Old 06-06-2001, 05:36 AM   #62
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Question

quote:rodahi
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
truthseekar: 1 he didn`t need to (if he used a scribe or interpritor.)

Where is your evidence that JOZ used a scribe or interpretor? Just because it is possible, it isn't necessarily so.

truthseekar: 2 considering scribes (this becomes iralivant)

How is it irrelevant? Whoever wrote the narrative could formulate a highly-developed theology. What makes you think an illiterate Galilean fisherman could eloquently articulate the deep theological ideas found in the narrative?
quote:
-----------------------------------------
truthseekar: also consider the day of pentacost in acts ch 2 when thay spoke in other tounges and prophesyed in many tounges so as to amaze those around , because thay heard the works of god in there own langage from a bunch of gallileans ( just like the prophets of old , ie king saul and elisha.)

What does this have to do with who wrote "John?"
---------------------------------------------
these were ignorant galilians,(john being one of them)all amazed those around with this:thay spoke in anther dialect and had theolygy that revealed god and amazed those around with the fact that thay were ONLY ignorant galalians.

first,I have no proof, just like you.but
it was common to use scribes.
second,john was a follower of john the baptised and jesus,he had plenty of time to learn there theology and I(believe) he lived long (due to many reports)and had plenty of time for learning.( this is were I think your flogging a dead horse.)thats what makes it irrelivent.
but instead of trying to tear down my theorys I would love to actually hear what your theory is concerning who wrote jonn( I honestly would be interested in your opinion but spare me the I no it all attitude please.

quote:
--------------------------------------------
I am never surprised by the remarks of those who made up their minds long ago. You have every right to believe the impossible, the improbable, and the absurd.
-------------------------------------------

I have definately not made up my mind (you are the one in that catagory)I came hear to learn more about this exact thing.The problem is all Iv`e realy heard from you is to tear down and that is easy to do , but to actually contribute to the theorys and knowleadge , that part of you I would love to hear but spare me the no it all lie`s.

please rodahi, do some speculating and give me a picture of what took place hear with the knowleadge you know (you obviously now something)and I can guaranty I will not tear it down as you do so easly.(althou i might have some questions)are you game. what do you realy no because if you want to act like a teacher I have litrely hundreds of questians to ask on these subjects.come on lets see what you realy no , start with your theory on this . and from there I will realy see what you no. but with all your critisisim all you have taught me is that I may be wrong but you havn`t said anything realy that could be educational to me on this subject so lets start again .
you teach me , rodahi,starting with your theory on who wrote john????
 
Old 06-06-2001, 07:35 PM   #63
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

quote:rodahi
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
truthseekar: 1 he didn`t need to (if he used a scribe or interpritor.)
Where is your evidence that JOZ used a scribe or interpretor? Just because it is possible, it isn't necessarily so.

truthseekar: 2 considering scribes (this becomes iralivant)

How is it irrelevant? Whoever wrote the narrative could formulate a highly-developed theology. What makes you think an illiterate Galilean fisherman could eloquently articulate the deep theological ideas found in the narrative?
quote:
-----------------------------------------
truthseekar: also consider the day of pentacost in acts ch 2 when thay spoke in other tounges and prophesyed in many tounges so as to amaze those around , because thay heard the works of god in there own langage from a bunch of gallileans ( just like the prophets of old , ie king saul and elisha.)

What does this have to do with who wrote "John?"
---------------------------------------------
truthseekar: these were ignorant galilians,(john being one of them)all amazed those around with this:thay spoke in anther dialect and had theolygy that revealed god and amazed those around with the fact that thay were ONLY ignorant galalians.

Quote the NT passage.

truthseekar: first,I have no proof, just like you.but
it was common to use scribes.


What makes you think JOZ used a scribe? Just present some evidence.

truthseekar: second,john was a follower of john the baptised

How do you know this?

truthseekar: and jesus,he had plenty of time to learn there theology and I(believe) he lived long (due to many reports)and had plenty of time for learning.

Present evidence that he had plenty of time to learn a highly-developed theology AND that he consequently became sufficiently skilled in Greek or any language to eloquently articulate those ideas to someone.

truthseekar: ( this is were I think your flogging a dead horse.)thats what makes it irrelivent.

The idea that an illiterate Galilean fisherman could have written the fourth gospel is ludicrous.

truthseekar: but instead of trying to tear down my theorys I would love to actually hear what your theory is concerning who wrote jonn( I honestly would be interested in your opinion but spare me the I no it all attitude please.

I don't have any idea who wrote the narrative attributed to a person named John and neither do you or anyone else. The narrative is ANONYMOUSLY written.

quote:
--------------------------------------------
I am never surprised by the remarks of those who made up their minds long ago. You have every right to believe the impossible, the improbable, and the absurd.
-------------------------------------------

truthseekar: I have definately not made up my mind (you are the one in that catagory)


Do you think it is probable that Jesus was nothing more than a man who was executed around two thousand years ago?

truthseekar: I came hear to learn more about this exact thing.

What would you like to know?

truthseekar: The problem is all Iv`e realy heard from you is to tear down and that is easy to do

I am not here to "tear down" anything. I am here to discuss the available evidence as it relates to the JC Bible. So far, you have done nothing but give your opinions and present a paragraph or so from Encarta 2001.

truthseekar: but to actually contribute to the theorys and knowleadge , that part of you I would love to hear but spare me the no it all lie`s.

The truth hurts.

truthseekar: please rodahi, do some speculating and give me a picture of what took place hear with the knowleadge you know (you obviously now something)and I can guaranty I will not tear it down as you do so easly.

I am not into "speculating."

turthseekar: (althou i might have some questions)are you game. what do you realy no because if you want to act like a teacher I have litrely hundreds of questians to ask on these subjects.

Maybe you should do as I suggested a few days ago: Read and study the NT, the history of the times of Jesus, and the so-called Church Fathers.

truthseekar: come on lets see what you realy no , start with your theory on this .

I am not into theories.

truthseekar: and from there I will realy see what you no. but with all your critisisim all you have taught me is that I may be wrong but you havn`t said anything realy that could be educational to me on this subject so lets start again .

You seem to have made up your mind that JOZ wrote the fourth gospel, regardless of the arguments against it. I think it is absurd to think an illiterate Galilean fisherman could have written the highly-developed theological concepts contained in the fourth gospel. Furthermore, there is no solid, credible evidence suggesting that he did.

truthseekar: you teach me , rodahi,starting with your theory on who wrote john????

I am not into theories. Furthermore, I am not terribly concerned with who wrote the narrative.

rodahi

 
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:38 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.