Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

James; The Wisdom from above

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by CoolerAbdullah786

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
The apostle John, brother of James.


And what do you base this on? What evidence do you have to support this claim? If the Apostle John wrote this narrative why does he speak of himself in the third person?


What difference would that make? As I wrote, Irenaeus attributed it to the Apostle John, and he was only one person removed from him. If you think to discredit him on the basis of what you consider a textual error in a multiply translated version of the Gospel, that's a bit of a stretch -- you're saying that either Irenaeus or Polycarp forged it, or knew the person who did and lied about it (and they weren't smart enough to catch your perceived "error".)

At any rate, if you want to argue on an off-topic subject, you might want to go talk to this guy:

Did John Write His Gospel?

who seems to have a pretty good handle on the issues at hand. As a Catholic historian, one would kind of expect him to, lol.
edit on 3-7-2012 by adjensen because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Well, adjensen I was talking to NOTurTYPICAL, but I'll address your points.

What difference does it make? It makes a lot of difference. Iraneus attributed to John? The same questions still apply. Why did he attribute it to John? What evidence was this based on? Why did John refer to himself in the third person?

When did I say Iraneus or Polycarp forged it? Please save the strawmen for someone else. Stick to the topic without throwing false accusations at me. If you can't do that, then I'll just go back to addressing NOTurTYPICAL like I was originally doing.

But I will peruse that article you posted. Thanks.



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by CoolerAbdullah786
 


Who cares? That doesn't exclude him from authorship for one thing, and secondly you're making an error, he speaks of John the Baptist which isn't John son of Zebedee brother of James. Two entirely different Johns.



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by CoolerAbdullah786
reply to post by adjensen
 


Well, adjensen I was talking to NOTurTYPICAL, but I'll address your points.

What difference does it make? It makes a lot of difference. Iraneus attributed to John? The same questions still apply. Why did he attribute it to John? What evidence was this based on? Why did John refer to himself in the third person?

When did I say Iraneus or Polycarp forged it? Please save the strawmen for someone else. Stick to the topic without throwing false accusations at me. If you can't do that, then I'll just go back to addressing NOTurTYPICAL like I was originally doing.

But I will peruse that article you posted. Thanks.


You will find the answers to your questions in said article, but Polycarp was Irenaeus' teacher, and John was Polycarp's, so, given Irenaeus' testimony that John wrote it, there are only three options:

1) Polycarp forged the document or knew who did and falsely told Irenaeus that John wrote it
2) Irenaeus forged the document or knew who did and falsely testified that John wrote it
3) John wrote (or, as noted in the article, was the source of testimony for) his Gospel

The other two options, that John knew his Gospel was forged and lied to Polycarp about it, or that the Gospel was forged and John or Polycarp just kind of forgot to tell their protege about it, are in my mind too far fetched to be considered.



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by CoolerAbdullah786
 


Who cares? That doesn't exclude him from authorship for one thing, and secondly you're making an error, he speaks of John the Baptist which isn't John son of Zebedee brother of James. Two entirely different Johns.


Actually, the author of the Gospel according to John speaks of John in the third person, not just John the Baptist. I am aware there are two different Johns


Who cares? I care. So does everyone who doesn't buy into the Bible and wants to know why the alleged authors of the Gospels, especially Matthew and John speak of themselves in the third person and why there is no evidence to back up who the authors are.

Why do you keep skirting the questions?



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen


You will find the answers to your questions in said article, but Polycarp was Irenaeus' teacher, and John was Polycarp's, so, given Irenaeus' testimony that John wrote it, there are only three options:

1) Polycarp forged the document or knew who did and falsely told Irenaeus that John wrote it
2) Irenaeus forged the document or knew who did and falsely testified that John wrote it
3) John wrote (or, as noted in the article, was the source of testimony for) his Gospel

The other two options, that John knew his Gospel was forged and lied to Polycarp about it, or that the Gospel was forged and John or Polycarp just kind of forgot to tell their protege about it, are in my mind too far fetched to be considered.


No that's not the only options. If it was a forgery not written by John then it obviously could have come about later in time. The Gospel according to John was written around 90-100 CE (Citation: Stephen L Harris, Understanding the Bible (Palo Alto: Mayfield, 1985) p. 355

So, again, what evidence is there to support that John wrote it and why does he write of himself in the third person?



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by CoolerAbdullah786

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by CoolerAbdullah786
 


Who cares? That doesn't exclude him from authorship for one thing, and secondly you're making an error, he speaks of John the Baptist which isn't John son of Zebedee brother of James. Two entirely different Johns.


Actually, the author of the Gospel according to John speaks of John in the third person, not just John the Baptist. I am aware there are two different Johns


Who cares? I care. So does everyone who doesn't buy into the Bible and wants to know why the alleged authors of the Gospels, especially Matthew and John speak of themselves in the third person and why there is no evidence to back up who the authors are.


I've a new word for you: Illeism, and you've almost certainly heard people do it all the time.

But there's no need for all the textual criticism, conspiracy theories and damning a complete document over a couple of words that may or may not be an error. You don't want to believe the Bible? Then don't believe the Bible. If you place your belief or non-belief of God or some critical aspect of him on such a flimsy basis, you might as well just chuck the whole thing and be done with it.



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Well, no I don't believe in it and I doubt I ever will again. That being said, people proclaim the authenticity of the Bible, yet they can't produce evidence of one single author of the Old Testament or the Gospels. Even a lot of the non-Gospel New Testament books' authorship are in dispute also.

So if those claims are made I feel I, and anyone else, has a right to challenge that. But don't try to silence me by hiding behind a "You don't have to believe the Bible if you don't want to" argument. If you don't want to get involved in this debate no one is forcing you to.

Oh and regarding illeism, it still begs the question of what evidence do you have to support that John wrote the Gospel according to John? Invoking Iraneus is nothing more than hearsay, at best.
edit on 3-7-2012 by CoolerAbdullah786 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by CoolerAbdullah786

Originally posted by adjensen


You will find the answers to your questions in said article, but Polycarp was Irenaeus' teacher, and John was Polycarp's, so, given Irenaeus' testimony that John wrote it, there are only three options:

1) Polycarp forged the document or knew who did and falsely told Irenaeus that John wrote it
2) Irenaeus forged the document or knew who did and falsely testified that John wrote it
3) John wrote (or, as noted in the article, was the source of testimony for) his Gospel

The other two options, that John knew his Gospel was forged and lied to Polycarp about it, or that the Gospel was forged and John or Polycarp just kind of forgot to tell their protege about it, are in my mind too far fetched to be considered.


No that's not the only options. If it was a forgery not written by John then it obviously could have come about later in time. The Gospel according to John was written around 90-100 CE (Citation: Stephen L Harris, Understanding the Bible (Palo Alto: Mayfield, 1985) p. 355


So your theory is that between John's death and Irenaeus writing about his Gospel, written by him, in 180AD, someone forged it, got it into circulation and neither Polycarp or Irenaeus said "hey, wait a minute, John never said anything about writing this!"

There's another mention of a Gospel by John in a text fragment from around 160AD, as I recall, but the key thing you're overlooking in Irenaeus' 180AD writing is that he WOULD have known whether John wrote a book or not. So, in the period from 100AD to 180AD, who is the intentional forger and/or liar to support your claim?



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
but the key thing you're overlooking in Irenaeus' 180AD writing is that he WOULD have known whether John wrote a book or not.


So you claim. How do you know that? Can you back that claim up?


So, in the period from 100AD to 180AD, who is the intentional forger and/or liar to support your claim?


I don't know. I don't know if there was a forger or if John wrote it. Fact is neither do you. You have no evidence to support that John wrote it. You have provided nothing other than hearsay in the form of "Iraneus says so."

But if there is no evidence to support such a claim, we can, on the side of logic, throw out the claim. As renowned skeptic Christopher Hitchens once wrote, "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

The onus probandi though is on you because you claim John wrote it. Please provide your evidence.



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by CoolerAbdullah786
reply to post by adjensen
 


Well, no I don't believe in it and I doubt I ever will again.


So why the interest in arguing about it? I do, in the interest of historical accuracy, but I never harbour any pretense that I'm likely to change anyone's mind about their beliefs. In a sense, I'd be a little disappointed if I did, lol.


That being said, people proclaim the authenticity of the Bible, yet they can't produce evidence of one single author of the Old Testament or the Gospels. Even a lot of the non-Gospel New Testament books' authorship are in dispute also.


I've never heard anyone claim that one person wrote the Old Testament -- Moses is attributed with the first five books (the "Pentateuch") and the rest is a bit of a mash up of prophets, David and his Psalms and then a lot of anonymous stuff that may or may not be written by someone or another. Without royalties, book tours and the trappings of the modern author, there was a lot less diligence in attributing works back then. Sort of a "it's the message, not the messenger" thing, I suppose.

As for the New Testament, I'm well aware of the problems of authorship (I've something of a fancy for Church history, particularly early heresy and the establishment of Orthodoxy.) Here's a post from about a year ago that you might find interesting:

Early Christian Heresy: Document Forgery and the Problem of The Gospel of Thomas


Oh and regarding illeism, it still begs the question of what evidence do you have to support that John wrote the Gospel according to John? Invoking Iraneus is nothing more than hearsay, at best.


Because on the one hand, we have evidence, in the form of historical records testifying to the fact, and in the other, we have your claim that someone referring to themselves in the third person is weird, despite the fact that people do it all the time.

If you were a lawyer, which evidence would you say was stronger?



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

I've never heard anyone claim that one person wrote the Old Testament


I never said one person did.


Moses is attributed with the first five books (the "Pentateuch")


Another unsubstantiated belief that raises the same questions. If Moses wrote it why did he refer to himself in the third person and how did he know the exact details of his death? Or did he write the first five books posthumously?


David and his Psalms


What evidence is there that David wrote the Psalms? A lot of historians merely refer to the writer of the Psalms as the Psalmist, an anonymous name.


Sort of a "it's the message, not the messenger" thing, I suppose.


So we are to trust a message from a bunch of anonymous authors? At least with the Qur'an, we know that Muhammad dictated it and that it was written down by his followers during his lifetime under his tutelage. Now whether it was from a Divine Source or not is another topic altogether, which has been the subject of debate for centuries. It has never been debated, though, if Muhammad dictated it.


Because on the one hand, we have evidence, in the form of historical records testifying to the fact,


What historical records and evidence? You've only pointed out hearsay from Iraneus who would definitely have a biased perspective.


If you were a lawyer, which evidence would you say was stronger?


I didn't present any evidence, merely raised an objection and an alternate theory, and neither did you. So, again, onus probandi would be on you.



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by CoolerAbdullah786
So we are to trust a message from a bunch of anonymous authors?


Why not? Who wrote the I Ching? Who wrote Beowulf? Or the Voynich manuscript? Is the value of a work tied to the name of the author?



Because on the one hand, we have evidence, in the form of historical records testifying to the fact,


What historical records and evidence? You've only pointed out hearsay from Iraneus who would definitely have a biased perspective.


So you dismiss historical records simply because you disagree with them?

No, there is no one alive today to testify in court that John wrote his Gospel. But I have asked you, repeatedly, to back up your implied claim that Polycarp and/or Irenaeus either forged the Gospel or lied in saying that John wrote them, and you have provided nothing but bluster.

Even Hitchens would dismiss that...



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
Who wrote the I Ching? Who wrote Beowulf? Or the Voynich manuscript?


Don't care. Whole religions aren't built around them nor do they claim to be the revealed Word of the One True God.


Is the value of a work tied to the name of the author?


When it comes to Divine Revelation, yes.


So you dismiss historical records simply because you disagree with them?


No, you haven't produced any. All you have produced is hearsay from a biased source. You cannot say that Iraneus would not have an agenda in claiming that John, the student of his student, wrote the Gospel according to John. So much time had passed between the writing of the Gospel and the time of Iraneus that it could have easily been a forgery. And without any evidence to back it up, to believe it was a forgery is not a large step to take.



But I have asked you, repeatedly, to back up your implied claim that Polycarp and/or Irenaeus either forged the Gospel or lied in saying that John wrote them, and you have provided nothing but bluster.


I never made that claim. You claimed I did. I never once said Polycarp or Iraneus forged it. Nor am I saying they are lying when they say John wrote it. If they said such a thing, they may truly believe that he did. It does not mean they were intentionally lying.

Again, stop constructing strawmen. I will not defend a position I did not make. Also, you are the one initially claiming that John wrote the Gospel with his name attached to it. So the onus probandi would be on you. Until you provide substantial evidence to back that claim, I don't technically need to do anything. Without evidence we can outright reject the claim of John's authorship. Hearsay from a biased source is not evidence.

On that note, I'm off to bed. Will reply in the AM if necessary
edit on 4-7-2012 by CoolerAbdullah786 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by CoolerAbdullah786

Originally posted by adjensen
Who wrote the I Ching? Who wrote Beowulf? Or the Voynich manuscript?


Don't care. Whole religions aren't built around them nor do they claim to be the revealed Word of the One True God.


Then I guess you have the name of your author there, you ol' fundamentalist, you




But I have asked you, repeatedly, to back up your implied claim that Polycarp and/or Irenaeus either forged the Gospel or lied in saying that John wrote them, and you have provided nothing but bluster.


I never made that claim. You claimed I did. I never once said Polycarp or Iraneus forged it. Nor am I saying they are lying when they say John wrote it. If they said such a thing, they may truly believe that he did. It does not mean they were intentionally lying.

Again, stop constructing strawmen. I will not defend a position I did not make. Also, you are the one initially claiming that John wrote the Gospel with his name attached to it.


Actually, if you roll all this back, you'll see that I never said that John wrote it -- I said that tradition says that John wrote it, that Irenaeus said that John wrote it, and I saw no reason to argue with that. Your claim that you think John referring to himself in the third person is weird is no reason to dismiss the historical facts.

You are obviously not a historian, and your dismissal of historical evidence without grounds does not create a persuasive argument. With that in mind, I repeat my earlier assertion that tradition holds that the Apostle John wrote the Gospel attributed to him, and that all historical records support it. If you have any evidence to refute those statements, you are welcome to provide it, but your claim that referring to oneself in the third person is weird is not evidence of any sort.

(It is also readily apparent that you didn't bother to read the article I linked to, or you didn't understand it. I would suggest you take the time to read what Mark Shea wrote on this subject.)
edit on 4-7-2012 by adjensen because: tag repair



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 06:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by CoolerAbdullah786

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by CoolerAbdullah786
 


Who cares? That doesn't exclude him from authorship for one thing, and secondly you're making an error, he speaks of John the Baptist which isn't John son of Zebedee brother of James. Two entirely different Johns.


Actually, the author of the Gospel according to John speaks of John in the third person, not just John the Baptist. I am aware there are two different Johns


Who cares? I care. So does everyone who doesn't buy into the Bible and wants to know why the alleged authors of the Gospels, especially Matthew and John speak of themselves in the third person and why there is no evidence to back up who the authors are.

Why do you keep skirting the questions?


1. There is no "skirting". I first assumed you were trying to be funny with the question.
2. Speaking of himself in the third person doesn't exclude him from authorship. (I still do not agree that he does)



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 06:16 AM
link   
reply to post by CoolerAbdullah786
 


We already know the gospel was written after 90 AD. John wrote it about the same time he wrote the book of Revelation. Presumably from Patmos while imprisoned there under banishment by Emperor Domitian.



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Well, again, Iraneus claiming that John wrote it is not evidence that John wrote it. At best it's hearsay. There has been no historical evidence provided. At this moment in time I don't need to refute anything because nothing has been provided to back up the claim. I mean you allegedly have the word of a man who was alive 150 years after Jesus lived and 100 years after the writing of the Gospel in question. And he would have a reason to claim the authorship was authentic. He was a biased source.



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 09:15 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Exactly. So it would have been written roughly 60 years after the alleged death of Jesus (as). We can also assume that the Apostle John would have been around the same age as Jesus, at most 10 years younger. So not only has 60 years passed before he started writing down the events, but he would also be in his 80s or 90s when he wrote it.

Even if he did write it, the possibility of it being historically authentic then comes into question because that gives a lot of time for embellishment and false memories. Time does distort things. So how can you tell me that John would have remembered everything as it happened, all of the conversations word for word, etc.

It's all highly questionable.



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by CoolerAbdullah786
 


Bad assumption. Christ was 30 when He began His public ministry and John was around 14-16. Peter was the oldest in his 40s.





new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join