Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Chili · 01-12-2009, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Transient

It would be best for you to start at the very beginning, which is at the end in fact, the end of the very beginning, or you might say, the beginning of the very end.
Tackling in this way you will be able to affect the change that you desire without affecting the outcome, which is important.
If you manage to effect change, try to leave a signature mark so that we can also detect your entry point so that we may follow.
Not many have succeeded so best of luck.

Sorry, I do not understand. Could you repeat that please?

Joan of Bark · 01-13-2009, 12:26 AM

Quote:

Pope Benedict XVI takes aim at doubting scholars, declaring that St John's Gospel is unquestionably an 'eyewitness account'

If he really used the bolded word, then it tells me all I need to know. The pope, as always, has no interest in evidence that contradicts his own preconceived notions.

Chili · 01-13-2009, 07:52 AM

It just means that it happened to him and I am surprised he did not add "when the world was still flat" to say the obvious that it is a transformation account.

andrewcriddle · 01-13-2009, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

Quote:

Pope Benedict XVI takes aim at doubting scholars, declaring that St John's Gospel is unquestionably an 'eyewitness account'

If he really used the bolded word, then it tells me all I need to know. The pope, as always, has no interest in evidence that contradicts his own preconceived notions.

This claims to be a translation of Benedict on John If it is accurate the times article would seem to be somehing of a paraphrase.

Andrew Criddle

Johnny Skeptic · 01-13-2009, 03:47 PM

Consider the following:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Microsoft Encyclopedia

John, Gospel According to, fourth book of the New Testament. Ecclesiastical tradition, dating from the latter part of the 2nd century, has maintained that it was written by Saint John toward the end of his life and published late in the 1st century, possibly in the ancient Greek city of Ephesus. Tradition also has held that it is the latest of the Gospels, a view shared and substantiated by modern scholars."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John#Date

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Most scholars agree on a range of c. 90–100 for when the gospel was written, though dates as early as the 60s or as late as the 140s have been advanced by a small number of scholars.

Even if the author of the book of John claimed to be an eyewitness, doesn't its late date bring its credibility into question?

How can anyone be reasonably certain that the author of John was an eyewitness?

Chili · 01-13-2009, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

This claims to be a translation of Benedict on John If it is accurate the times article would seem to be somehing of a paraphrase.

Andrew Criddle

Thank you Andrew, not bad at all and it seems pretty clear to me:

Quote:

Every man and every woman needs to find a deep meaning for their own existence. And for this, books are not enough, not even sacred Scripture. The Child of Bethlehem reveals and communicates to us the true "face" of the good and faithful God.

Not much had changed, it sounds like, but required is that we encounter that Child of Bethlehem in person (and there better be a full manger there to wit).

Chili · 01-13-2009, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

How can anyone be reasonably certain that the author of John was an eyewitness?

It was not addressed to Wiki people so that will be their problem.

aa5874 · 01-13-2009, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Consider the following:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Microsoft Encyclopedia

John, Gospel According to, fourth book of the New Testament. Ecclesiastical tradition, dating from the latter part of the 2nd century, has maintained that it was written by Saint John toward the end of his life and published late in the 1st century, possibly in the ancient Greek city of Ephesus. Tradition also has held that it is the latest of the Gospels, a view shared and substantiated by modern scholars."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John#Date

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Most scholars agree on a range of c. 90–100 for when the gospel was written, though dates as early as the 60s or as late as the 140s have been advanced by a small number of scholars.

Even if the author of the book of John claimed to be an eyewitness, doesn't its late date bring its credibility into question?

How can anyone be reasonably certain that the author of John was an eyewitness?

But, to what was the author of John an eyewitness? The author made statements that are not credible, that Jesus was witnessed alive after he resurrected and that Jesus raised a man from the dead who had began to stink after being dead for four days.

There is no way it can be known what the author could have really witnessed when it is false that he could have been with Jesus alive, eating fish and bread, after he was supposed to be dead and buried.

In antiquity, and even today, some may think that a resurrection is just as plausible as a crucifixion, however it is likely that such an event , the resurrection, did not occur, and the same may actually apply to the crucifixion or any other plausible events in gJohn, that is, they just never happened, and there were no eyewitnesses.

Chili · 01-13-2009, 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

In antiquity, and even today, some may think that a resurrection is just as plausible as a crucifixion, however it is likely that such an event , the resurrection, did not occur, and the same may actually apply to the crucifixion or any other plausible events in gJohn, that is, they just never happened, and there were no eyewitnesses.

It is if the nativity is replaced the fig tree allegory.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-13-2009, 07:52 AM	#23
Chili Banned Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Alberta Posts: 11,885	It just means that it happened to him and I am surprised he did not add "when the world was still flat" to say the obvious that it is a transformation account.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.