Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JoeWallack · 04-26-2005, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dost

I understand that the 4th gospel is not deemed much historically reliable by most New Testament scholars and is not used to a large extent in historical Jesus research studies, mainly because of the very different image and story of Jesus presented within it.

Strobel, however, quotes McRay, who is presumable a reliable scholar, who suggests that John is actually a historically reliable source. I would just like to know if the following claims of discovery are correct or exagerrated?

JW:
Claiming that "John" is historically reliable is comical since:

1) We don't know who wrote "John".

2) We don't know what was originally written.

3) We don't know where "John" was written.

4) We don't know when "John" was written.

5) We don't know how "John" was written.

6) We don't know why "John" was written.

The claim becomes absurd when you consider what was the only significant day in the history of the world according to Christianity. "John" sez it was Nissan 14th but the Sinoptics say it was Nissan 15th. So "John's" historical claim of Nissan 14th is contradicted by the most important Not "John" historical record according to Christianity (Can you imagine the two supposed disciples, "John" and "Matthew", not even agreeing on what day the crucifixion was).

Joseph

STORY, n.
A narrative, commonly untrue. The truth of the stories here following has, however, not been successfully impeached:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors...yguid=68161660

http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.