Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Chris Weimer · 07-11-2005, 11:42 AM

I think Johnny Skeptic is a bit confused. You see, no one here really gives a shit whether or not John was an eyewitness report or not, as we all generally know that it's not, but that it has the legal bearing of the signature of a "witness".

hughmcjr · 07-11-2005, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Humcjr wrote: Johnny Skeptic does not qualify as being eyewitnesses testimony either.

GakuseiDon replied: Except towards the existence of Delux editions of encyclopedias.

Johnny: <deleted>Where do you <deleted> think that encyclopedias get their research data from? From scholars who hold minority opinions? No, the Microsoft Encyclopedia said that "most" scholars will not defend John the disciple of Jesus as being the author of the book of John. The encyclopedia is not speaking for itself, but for most scholars. You <deleted> need to produce some corroboration from a number of experts. Why haven't you done so?

You <deleted> are good at sarcasm, but how good are you in moderated formal debates? I'll bet lousy. How about a debate on homesexuality, same sex marriage, physician assisted suicide or the Terri Schiavo case? I am pretty sure that both of you <deleted> will head for the hills.

Running..yes..from arrogance!

GakuseiDon · 07-11-2005, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

You <deleted> are good at sarcasm, but how good are you in moderated formal debates? I'll bet lousy. How about a debate on homesexuality, same sex marriage, physician assisted suicide or the Terri Schiavo case?

No problem. I'll take the positive position. What exactly do you have against homosexuality, same sex marriage and physician assisted suicide?

GakuseiDon · 07-12-2005, 04:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

The Britannica 2002 Deluxe Edition says “Although the Gospel is ostensibly written by John, ‘the beloved disciple’ of Jesus, there has been considerable discussion of the actual identity of the author. The language of the Gospel and its well-developed theology suggest that the author may have lived later than John and based his writing on John's teachings and testimonies.

Actually, most critical scholars today believe that the Gospel of John was written in 3 parts, starting from around 50 CE. The Wikipedia Encyclopedia says, "Today, most critical scholars are of the opinion that John was composed in stages (probably two or three), beginning at an unknown time (AD 50-70?) and culminating in the final edition (our Gospel of John) around AD 95-100. This final date is assumed in large part because John 21, the so-called "appendix" to John, is largely concerned with explaining the death of the "beloved disciple," probably the leader of the Johannine community that produced the gospel. If this leader had been a follower of Jesus, or a disciple of one of Jesus' followers, then a death around AD 90-100 is expected."

So, based on Wikipedia Encyclopedia scholarship (admittedly not the Deluxe edition though :down: ), the Gospel of John might very well be the work of an eye-witness, at least in part.

Killer Mike · 07-12-2005, 04:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Hello everyone,

I did quite well with this topic at the Theology Web. Even James Holding gave up contesting my argument. Following is what I posted at the Theology Web:

John 21:24 says "This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true." Some Christians claim that the verse reasonably proves eyewitnesses testimony. It actually does nothing of the kind. First of all, a good deal of scholarship states that the authorhsip of John cannot be reasonably proven. Second of all, most scholars state that the book of John was released at least 50 years after the supposed facts. That was much too late for adequate investigation of the claims. Third of all, who "we" is is not stated, and in a court trial an unidentified "we" would be of no value whatsoever. Fourth of all and most importantly, the word "testifieth" is the key word in the verse. The first definition given for the word "testify" in Merriam Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary is "To make a statement based upon personal knowledge OR belief." Therefore, by defnintion John 21:24 could have been based upon belief, not knowledge.

Luke 24:33-34 say "And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them, Saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon." Even though virtually no one initially believed that Jesus would rise from the dead, not only the disciples but "them that were with them" believed that Jesus had risen from the dead based upon the testimony of only one man, only to later have doubts about their conclusion. Matthew 28:17 says "And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted." Would any Christian in this forum believe that Jesus had returned to earth based upon the testimony of one person, even a relative or close friend? I doubt it.

Even more embarrassing for Christians is the fact that there aren't even any reasonably provable examples of second hand or third hand testimonies in the Gospels. End of quotes.

Holding criticized me for using an English dictionary to define the Greek word "martureo," which means testify, but the definition from a Greek dictionary that Holding cited also said that one meaning is something that is heard, just like the Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary says. When I brought this to his attention, he didn't make any more replies in that thread.

What about all those "eyewitnesses" who have seen Superman do all those amazing things in Superman stories? :Cheeky:

Johnny Skeptic · 07-12-2005, 05:26 AM

GakuseiDon wrote: No problem. I'll take the positive position. What exactly do you (Johnny Skeptic) have against homosexuality, same sex marriage and physician assisted suicide?

Johnny: I don't have any problem at all with those topics. I support them. Do you?

Johnny Skeptic · 07-12-2005, 06:20 AM

GakuseiDon wrote: So, based on Wikipedia Encyclopedia scholarship (admittedly not the Deluxe edition though ), the Gospel of John might very well be the work of an eye-witness, at least in part.

Johnny: Is the opposite possibility not just as valid? Are you defining "might very well be" to mean probable? Let me try another approach. When the Gospel of Mark was released around 70 A.D., did the disciples defend their status as eyewitnesses? As I said in a previous post, Dr. Robert Price told me "We don't even really know who "the disciples" were, much less how long they lived or what of the gradually forming gospel tradition they ever heard of!" Of course, Christians claim that the gospel tradition did not form gradually. What external evidence is there that it did not form gradually?

Regarding the 500 eyewitnesses, there is no external evidence that Paul wrote the claim, or even that it was written in the 1st century. Yes, most scholars agree that Paul's epistles are for the most part Pauline, but no scholar will try to make a case that every single sentence in the epistles is identifiably Pauline. Other than the claim of the 500 eyewitnesses, the most important eyewitnesses would be the disciples. The women who supposedly saw Jesus is not a decent apologetic argument. Do you know of any external evidence that states that after Mark was released the surviving disciples defended their status as eyewitnesses? What was written is one issue, but what was defended is another issue entirely.

GakuseiDon · 07-12-2005, 08:08 AM

GakuseiDon wrote: No problem. I'll take the positive position. What exactly do you (Johnny Skeptic) have against homosexuality, same sex marriage and physician assisted suicide? Johnny: I don't have any problem at all with those topics. I support them. Do you? GakuseiDon: No, I don't have any problem with those topics, either. At least we agree on something! But this is off-topic, and I don't want to derail this thread.

GakuseiDon wrote: So, based on Wikipedia Encyclopedia scholarship (admittedly not the Deluxe edition though ), the Gospel of John might very well be the work of an eye-witness, at least in part. Johnny wrote: Is the opposite possibility not just as valid? Are you defining "might very well be" to mean probable? GakuseiDon: Well, at least "possible". If most critical scholars are correct, then a date of around 50 CE might well make that "probable". Johnny wrote: Of course, Christians claim that the gospel tradition did not form gradually. What external evidence is there that it did not form gradually? GakuseiDon: "Christians claim this. Christians claim that." Which Christians claim that the gospel tradition did not form gradually, and why should I care?

Johnny wrote: Regarding the 500 eyewitnesses, there is no external evidence that Paul wrote the claim, or even that it was written in the 1st century. Yes, most scholars agree that Paul's epistles are for the most part Pauline, but no scholar will try to make a case that every single sentence in the epistles is identifiably Pauline. Other than the claim of the 500 eyewitnesses, the most important eyewitnesses would be the disciples. The women who supposedly saw Jesus is not a decent apologetic argument. Do you know of any external evidence that states that after Mark was released the surviving disciples defended their status as eyewitnesses? GakuseiDon: No, I don't. Is anyone claiming this?

Johnny Skeptic · 07-12-2005, 09:22 AM

The two most important claims of eyewitnesses in the New Testament are the 500 eyewitnesses and the disciples. Regarding the 500 eyewitnesses, there are not any good reasons at all for anyone to assume that Paul wrote the claim, or even that it was written in the 1st century.

Regarding the disciples, when the Gospel of Mark was released around 70 A.D., did the disciples defend their status as eyewitnesses? If there is no external evidence that they did, then there is no reason for anyone to assume that they did. It is one thing for people to write claims, as the Gospel writers did, second hand or possibly even third or fourth hand I might add, but it is another thing entirely for the people about whom the claims were made, the disciples, to verify the claims themselves. Second hand evidence that the surviving disciples defended their status as eyewitnesses would be the next best thing. Is there any? What Christians need to do is provide external evidence of a consistent defense of the Resurrection by eyewitnesses, mainly the 500 eyewitnesses and the disciples, for at least the first few decades following the death of Jesus How about it Christians?

Amaleq13 · 07-12-2005, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

The two most important claims of eyewitnesses in the New Testament are the 500 eyewitnesses and the disciples.

I think the Paul's claim involving named individuals witnessing the risen Christ are more important than a reference to an anonymous crowd if only because none of the subsequent Gospel stories repeats it. Then again, none of them mention an appearance to James, either. And Paul's reference to the appearance to "Cephas" seems to suggest he was not part of "the twelve". It seems to me that comparing Paul with the Gospel stories does not do all that much to support the former.

Quote:

Regarding the disciples, when the Gospel of Mark was released around 70 A.D., did the disciples defend their status as eyewitnesses?

At least two of the Big Three were dead, weren't they? IMO, the biggest problem with answering your question is that we don't have any evidence this story was circulating until the 2nd century. If we assume (which I don't) that Papias is talking about the same story, then we can push back circulation to the end of the 1st but who of the characters depicted was still alive. More importantly, where was Mark initially circulating? Was it someplace where the depicted characters were available for questioning or was it somewhere far away? Mark is traditionally thought to have been written in Rome but modern scholarship seems to tend toward Syria, IIRC. At least one modern scholar, our very own spin, finds the linguistic evidence to support tradition in this instance. With Peter dead, who was in Rome to be interviewed?

With regard to John, tradition also says the same author wrote the epistles but they indicate people were leaving "John's" community in favor of somebody else's teachings on Jesus. Does that make any sense if they knew "John" was an original disciple of Jesus?

07-12-2005, 09:22 AM	#29
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	John 21:24 The two most important claims of eyewitnesses in the New Testament are the 500 eyewitnesses and the disciples. Regarding the 500 eyewitnesses, there are not any good reasons at all for anyone to assume that Paul wrote the claim, or even that it was written in the 1st century. Regarding the disciples, when the Gospel of Mark was released around 70 A.D., did the disciples defend their status as eyewitnesses? If there is no external evidence that they did, then there is no reason for anyone to assume that they did. It is one thing for people to write claims, as the Gospel writers did, second hand or possibly even third or fourth hand I might add, but it is another thing entirely for the people about whom the claims were made, the disciples, to verify the claims themselves. Second hand evidence that the surviving disciples defended their status as eyewitnesses would be the next best thing. Is there any? What Christians need to do is provide external evidence of a consistent defense of the Resurrection by eyewitnesses, mainly the 500 eyewitnesses and the disciples, for at least the first few decades following the death of Jesus How about it Christians?

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

07-11-2005, 11:42 AM	#21
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	I think Johnny Skeptic is a bit confused. You see, no one here really gives a shit whether or not John was an eyewitness report or not, as we all generally know that it's not, but that it has the legal bearing of the signature of a "witness".

07-12-2005, 05:26 AM	#26
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	GakuseiDon wrote: No problem. I'll take the positive position. What exactly do you (Johnny Skeptic) have against homosexuality, same sex marriage and physician assisted suicide? Johnny: I don't have any problem at all with those topics. I support them. Do you?

07-12-2005, 06:20 AM	#27
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	GakuseiDon wrote: So, based on Wikipedia Encyclopedia scholarship (admittedly not the Deluxe edition though ), the Gospel of John might very well be the work of an eye-witness, at least in part. Johnny: Is the opposite possibility not just as valid? Are you defining "might very well be" to mean probable? Let me try another approach. When the Gospel of Mark was released around 70 A.D., did the disciples defend their status as eyewitnesses? As I said in a previous post, Dr. Robert Price told me "We don't even really know who "the disciples" were, much less how long they lived or what of the gradually forming gospel tradition they ever heard of!" Of course, Christians claim that the gospel tradition did not form gradually. What external evidence is there that it did not form gradually? Regarding the 500 eyewitnesses, there is no external evidence that Paul wrote the claim, or even that it was written in the 1st century. Yes, most scholars agree that Paul's epistles are for the most part Pauline, but no scholar will try to make a case that every single sentence in the epistles is identifiably Pauline. Other than the claim of the 500 eyewitnesses, the most important eyewitnesses would be the disciples. The women who supposedly saw Jesus is not a decent apologetic argument. Do you know of any external evidence that states that after Mark was released the surviving disciples defended their status as eyewitnesses? What was written is one issue, but what was defended is another issue entirely.

07-12-2005, 08:08 AM	#28
GakuseiDon Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 5,714	GakuseiDon wrote: No problem. I'll take the positive position. What exactly do you (Johnny Skeptic) have against homosexuality, same sex marriage and physician assisted suicide? Johnny: I don't have any problem at all with those topics. I support them. Do you? GakuseiDon: No, I don't have any problem with those topics, either. At least we agree on something! But this is off-topic, and I don't want to derail this thread. GakuseiDon wrote: So, based on Wikipedia Encyclopedia scholarship (admittedly not the Deluxe edition though ), the Gospel of John might very well be the work of an eye-witness, at least in part. Johnny wrote: Is the opposite possibility not just as valid? Are you defining "might very well be" to mean probable? GakuseiDon: Well, at least "possible". If most critical scholars are correct, then a date of around 50 CE might well make that "probable". Johnny wrote: Of course, Christians claim that the gospel tradition did not form gradually. What external evidence is there that it did not form gradually? GakuseiDon: "Christians claim this. Christians claim that." Which Christians claim that the gospel tradition did not form gradually, and why should I care? Johnny wrote: Regarding the 500 eyewitnesses, there is no external evidence that Paul wrote the claim, or even that it was written in the 1st century. Yes, most scholars agree that Paul's epistles are for the most part Pauline, but no scholar will try to make a case that every single sentence in the epistles is identifiably Pauline. Other than the claim of the 500 eyewitnesses, the most important eyewitnesses would be the disciples. The women who supposedly saw Jesus is not a decent apologetic argument. Do you know of any external evidence that states that after Mark was released the surviving disciples defended their status as eyewitnesses? GakuseiDon: No, I don't. Is anyone claiming this?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.