Febble

Well, baggage, obviously, partly, but also because it is clear that the writer is claiming eye-witness authority, and yet does not use the first person. So the strong implication is that the writer is present. In which case it is at least plausible that where an un-named disciple is mentioned, it is the author (oral source if not the writer).

No, and I am not making a reasoned leap. And I'm talking as a reader of literature not as a scientist. It sounds like well-researched writing. If Mark can be assumed not to be local because he makes geographical mistakes, it is at least of interest that John gets stuff right. Maybe he's simply a better writer, doing better research.

Sure. But the hollywood film makers were eye witnesses to the white house.

Yes.

Well, it is certainly baggage talking. I WAS brought up with bible knowledge. At my boarding school we had to learn passages by heart before breakfast - and we were given the good bits, so I am biased in favour a) of the good bits of the gospels and b) in favour of the poetic bits of John, poetry being easier to memorise.

Oh yes. But I wasn't clear - I am not arguing that they do stand up to scrutiny - simply that it is possible for large numbers of people to believe they have witnessed something miraculous without actually lying.

Actually, I don't think so. Sometimes the biggest breakthrough comes when someone suspends belief ("suppose the speed of light ISN'T variable....")

Yes, biases are a bad thing. So it is vital that you do not forget what you are suspending.

Yes. I would imagine they might well have been.

And in mine, though clearly from less knowledge.Thanks to you too.

Lizzie

Julian

Plausible, maybe. Certainly not more. Seems a flimsy foundation...
That last sentence is probably correct. It is certainly the most reasonable assumption.
Exactly, yet their invading space aliens never happened. Therefore, the appearance of the white house is not evidence of anything other than the existence of the the white house. The same with the pool in Jerusalem.
This reminds me of a quote from Michael Shermer: "Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for nonsmart reasons."
Completely agree, but while they are not lying, it is, still, a lie. Sounds weird, but I am sure you get my point.
I think there is a big difference between "thinking outside the box" or "using your imagination" and "suspending disbelief." There can be no doubt that imagination is the greatest ally a good scientist can have. Yet, the imagination will avail him nothing if the imagination is not controlled, guided and directed by strict science. Imagination may show one other possibilities, belief implies accepting them unlike imagination which merely shows them.

Julian

Diogenes the Cynic

As has been noted, details are every bit as much a characteristic of fiction as non-fiction, often even more so. A Million Little Pieces has lots of details in it and the author claims to be telling a "true" account of his life. We all know how that turned out.

In the case of John, not only does it not make a claim to be an eyewitness account (the 3rd person assertion in 21:24 that "we know this [unnamed] disciple's account to be true" is a later appendix to the text, not part of the original book) but it also makes an anachronistic error that would be impossible for a companion of Jesus. The author of GJohn thinks that Christians were expelled from the synagogue during he life of Jesus. This did not happen until around 85 CE - after the Jewish-Roman War and more than 50 years after the alleged crucifixion. That (among other things) makes it very difficult to sustain any theory of apostolic authorship.

Llyricist

Two Names to consider:

Joseph Smith
L Ron Hubbard

Febble

Listen, I am not attempting to demonstrate that John is NOT fiction. I am not proselytising here, although it is an interesting experience to be proselytised by atheists.

I love St John's Gospel because I think it is a profound work of theology and a beautiful piece of literature. I am also prepared to entertain the POSSIBILITY it contains some literal truth. I am sure it is NOT an accurate chronology of the life of Christ. I am certainly NOT attempting to demonstrate that it is.

I am aware that there are people around who cynically try convert people to positions they themselves do not hold. I just balk at the idea. That may be a fault of naivete in me. However, I do not know of anyone who does so while simultaneously writing sublime poetry. Certainly not L Ron Hubbard.

I am a theist because I believe in free will and I believe in goodness. I happen to call that goodness God. I find witness to that goodness in the life of Christ, and in the gospel of St John.

I don't happen to find it (much) in St Paul. I suppose that makes me a cafeteria Christian, but I'll defend my position in some other thread maybe.

Cheers

Febble

I was thinking of 19:35.

I do not argue that John was written by an eye-witness. I merely find it credible that it has an eye witness (possibly apostolic) source, and, therefore, in contrast to my first post, that if not true, it is a lie. I do not think it can hide under the excuse of being a metaphor if it cites an eye witness source.

But I would like to know more.

I am not sure that I follow your point that Christians were not expelled from the synagogue until after 85 CE. There are two (?) incidents of people being expelled from the synagogue IIRC. Is there evidence that this did not happen?

Julian

I am not proselytizing, I am debating. You have every right to hold your beliefs, even if I do disagree with them. I just happen to like debating. *shrug*
Dangerous sentence. So you are a theist because you believe in free will and goodness? Meaning, people who are not theists do not believe in those things?
Strange that I should find the exact opposite. All subjective, I guess.

Julian

Febble

Me too. Sorry, just got in to find posts implying that I was making a stronger point than I actually was, so I thought I'd better straighten things up. I I didn't come to an atheist board to try to sell Christianity.

No, NOT meaning that. It is perfectly possible to believe in free will and not believe in God. It is also possible not to believe in free will and yet to believe in God, apparently, though I find that truly weird. I am merely saying that my own belief in God stems from my belief that my will is free, and that I am therefore free to choose between good and evil. I happen to find "God" a good model for my belief that choosing goodness matters.

I don't ask anyone else to adopt that model, though I think it is a powerful one.

Not so strange. My son and I are fans of Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials. Pullman is an atheist, and yet we both find his idea of Dust a very good metaphor for what we call God.

Does that make us atheists? Maybe.

Febble

No, it is evidence that the person who made the movie took a picture of the White House. Or knew someone who did.

Yes, I am aware of that. I mean, I didn't know the quote, but I'm aware that I have some skill at defending positions regardless of whether I hold them. And that if you arrived at your beliefs for non-smart reasons, you have to be sure you present yourself with the opposite argument. So I am. The opposite argument may yet win. I do not honestly know what I think of the Gospel of John, or any of the other Gospels, as history, although I am not persuaded that Jesus was a mythical figure. I certainly don't believe that Jesus was born of a virgin - actually, I think it's heretical, and only escaped the notice of the inquisition because the ovum had not been discovered. So that's one reason I'm fond of John - no virgins, just a distraught mother. I do think that healing "miracles" occur, but not for supernatural reasons. The more we discover about the nature of the placebo effect, the more we may understand about miracles (because the truly amazing thing about the placebo effect is that is a real effect).

Yes, I get it. But I may still disagree. If a red placebo pill has a bigger clinical effect than a blue one, is the red one a lie? In one sense yes, especially as there is evidence that a placebo effect is enhanced by mumbo jumbo of any sort, whether medical or religious. So it seems that lies cure. But if the cure is real, does that mean the lie is no longer a lie? (wrong forum for the question, maybe).

I agree completely. I have no particular vested interest in one metaphor over the other. And mostly science is best conducted inside the box. However, sometimes "thinking the unthinkable" is useful. I'm still at the stage of being prepared to think the unthinkable over the resurrection. The days of those thoughts may be numbered.

Buster Daily

Given that large parts of the synoptics have common sources, I find it more interesting to look at the places where they differ. Rather than coming up with schemes to harmonize the differences, it usually makes more sense to try to ascertain what the author is trying to say about the nature of the characters and what the author's theological motives are.

One interesting difference is the dying words of Jesus. Would anyone under reasonable circumstances claim that he made both statements, but each author chose only to record one? Which order did he make them? If you are a System of a Down fan you know that he made the statement found in Luke before the one in Matthew and Mark.