(October 28, 2010 at 12:41 pm)Godschild Wrote: You make no sense, an eye wittness but was not born yet, let's straighten you out here John was a disciple of Jesus so your first notion is correct he was an eye wittness. Why do you think he got it wrong John tells the event like it happened regardless of where he placed it in his gospel of Jesus, John was giving a testiment to the life of Jesus not a time line of His life.
My Parenthesis () was the reality, the rest was addresses at the specific conclusions of fundamentalist assumptions, in either situation you are fucked as far are reliability of testimony is concerned, though when you consider the fact that NONE of the authors are eye witnesses it's even worse for you.
The author of John is not John the Apostle from the stories, firstly, the author is clearly not from a Jewish descent, secondly, the author uses examples of people becoming confused by Jesus's preaching on multiple occasions, by using common comprehension problems, like similar words with different meaning, that ONLY WORK IN GREEK. It's like someone getting confused between Teacher and Teeter in a conversation, you translate that into Chinese and the confusion is inapplicable.
There are many other reasons why the Author John and the other Gospels could not have been eye witnesses, but i'm not here to school you, go read a book that contains something other than ad hoc apologetics.
Quote:Well pal seems to me you are the one denying the authorship of the gospels so prove it, find the originals and prove what I believe wrong. They were eyewittnesses except maybe for Luke and he searches out the eyewittnesses to give a historical and spiritual account of the life of Jesus. You might want to consider this, truth has a way of repeating itself with very little deviation from the original so what you see as copying from one gospel, to write the others, could be an example of how the truth will remain in tack when stated by others.
1. We don't have the originals
2. We don't have "very little deviation", we have fucking bucket-loads of it.
3. Eye witness testimony from multiple sources NEVER ends up verbatim, their use of language will be similar, as will the description, but to have 90% of the texts being identical to Mark in Matt and Luke is NOT what we get from different eye witness testimony. Not only that, but eye witness testimony doesn't have events out of order by A DECADE from it's contemporaries.
They were not eye witnesses, Matthew and Luke are 90% word-for-word with Mark, it's a blatant case of copping, the differences they have (such as the birth narrative and the genealogy etc) are ALL in places where Mark had nothing to say about the matter. This is what is to be expected when a story becomes geographically isolated to a large extent in two very different communities, the Jewish community of Matthew and the Alexandrian community of Luke. Each filled in the blanks with the stories that had spread to and changed inside their communities.
Quote:Matthew being Jewish would have a jewish tint to his gospel and Luke being a physician could have had a Greek education giving his gospel a more alexandrian flavor so what's the big deal here, these men were writting in a style that was suited to them.
The book of Luke is anonymous, the author is believed to have been a Gentile travelling with
Paul who also wrote the book of Acts. The only way that it got the name luke is by saying (in 170CE) "Oh, this guy seems to have travelled with Paul, He must be Luke, we'll name his work as such" and that is quite literally everything they made that decision based upon. The first Gospel we have to bear the name Luke is from 200 CE.
It's not just the writing style, which is 90% identical where copied from Mark, everything original they disagree on, from the resurrection and who was there, to the genealogy to the story of why Jesus was born in Bethlehem, none of it matches. This is exactly what you get from two isolated communities filling in the blanks by themselves, they have the same outline, but the details are WAAAAAY different.
Quote:John was only a teenager when called by Jesus to be a disciple so the world and religions of the day would have had less influence on him and he would have developed a more spiritual nature than the others as a follower of Christ.
Except John the apostle is not or never claims to be the author of John. Someone a few hundred years later simply decided that he was.
Quote:Yes I stated that John was not a historical time line of events in the life of Jesus but that does not mean that the temple cleansing event as recorded in John was not in it's proper place in the life of Jesus.
Well which one is right then? Surely if you have a defualt assumption that Luke is more historically accurate there is no reason to accept the account in John unless you have good reason to do so, then I ask you, what is this reason?
Quote:All of this flip-flopping, I've not flip-flopped anything it's your narrow mindness that has you seeing things in a way that was not intended.
Oh yeah, someone who spends heaps of time studying an opposing position is clearly narrow minded right? Dream on, you don't get to claim that I am narrow minded while my points all stand.
.
