The Bible - Why Trust It

[firedragon]

The

I am using a scholarly work, where the information I gave you, comes from. I don't need google for that.
We know John is the writer, due to facts, not beliefs.
I gave you those facts. If you prefer the beliefs, that's fine by me.

Question is, you said all johannine books in the bible are written by one person. What kind of criticism technique have you used to make that assessment?

You have NOT given an answer. If you dont understand what criticism is, do some research or ask.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You may be best keeping your opinions of motive to just
your own.
it is more than a little clear you do not understand what it
is to be a skeptic.
Your own bible says to test all things, does it not?

An atheist such as i can look at the bible, and see, well, this
is a good story with a moral message, here is good advice,
this is just weird, this is boring, this disagrees with that.

AND, we look at outside sources to confirm, or show error.
Is there really Egypt? Yes. Is Pi really 3.0? uh, no.

IF the Bible somehow consistently made sense and was
believable, I would be a Christian. Same as I would believe
there are palm trees in Alaska, if I found that they really
are there.

Reading the bible and thinking about it, same as with the BoM
was what convinced me it is not what people claim it is.

It is really uncool to accuse others of your own fault. You go
in thinking it is all true and perfect, and look for "proof" to
satisfy yourself. (that is intellectual dishonesty, btw)

A skeptic is not a scoffer, who just ignorantly laughs at
what they dont know (see creationists scoffing at science).

A skeptic is one who really does as the bible suggests, test
all things.

Actually the Bible repeatedly warns people not to test God. It is almost as if they knew what the results of those tests would be:

Matthew 4:7 Jesus replied, "It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'"

 

[Audie]

Actually the Bible repeatedly warns people not to test God. It is almost as if they knew what the results of those tests would be:

Matthew 4:7 Jesus replied, "It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'"

You mean....(gasp) another contradiction?????

I think you have it wrong tho. I think it means things like
dont expect god to intervene for you. As in faith healing,
taking up serpents etc. Excellent advice, for dealing
with an absentee landlord kinda god!

 

[nPeace]

What facts? I think that the facts were what convinced modern scholars that claiming John was the author is a mere belief.

What facts are those?

 

[nPeace]

So apply your analogy to this particular situation. Matthew says they fled to Egypt, another gospel says they returned to Nazareth. Two supposed witnesses with different stories. Which one is correct?

Your answer: they both are. It's just a matter of perspective?

So spell it out clearly. Are you saying that both account are true? Give us you interpretation of these events.

The thief came out of the bushes. The thief ran off with the bike. Both are true. Both came from two eyewitnesses.
You don't understand that?

 

[Audie]

The thief came out of the bushes. The thief ran off with the bike. Both are true. Both came from two eyewitnesses.
You don't understand that?

My goodness, you cannot tell the difference
between accounts that fit together, and ones that
contradict eachother?

Try this. The thief dropped onto the bike from a helicopter
versus "came out of the bushes".

Or, "he immediately threw the bike in the river" versus
"He rode it to Jerusalem"

 

[nPeace]

The


Question is, you said all johannine books in the bible are written by one person. What kind of criticism technique have you used to make that assessment?

You have NOT given an answer. If you dont understand what criticism is, do some research or ask.

Is that what you were asking? I must not have understood you then.
Taking the information presented to you before, it should not be too hard. In fact it is quite simple.
John wrote the Gospel of John.
The style of writing and similarities in content with the letters of John, indicate that it is the same writer. John is an elder in the church.
John is clear that he wrote Revelation.
The disciple, and eyewitness.

No other writer is credited with these works by church fathers, as early as 140 - 185 CE.
No opposition by early historians have been found.
19th century scholars are the first to oppose the evidence.
What's the problem?

Please note, you did not give me any information at all, on why John is not the writer of the five books.
I seem to be the only one providing information. I wonder why.
Is it because the reasons for the majority scholars views are based on mere belief... as I pointed out in an earlier post.

 

[Audie]

I
I seem to be the only one providing information. I wonder why.
Is it because the reasons for the majority scholars views are based on mere belief... as I pointed out in an earlier post.

Why do you go with the majority of scholars in this case, but
in science, you go for the tiniest minority (those who for
example think there really was a flood).

Could it be you only believe those you want to believe?

 

[firedragon]

The style of writing and similarities in content with the letters of John, indicate that it is the same writer

In order to decide this about the writer, what form of criticism have you used? Thats the question. You are not answering that question. You are repeating the same statement.

What form of criticism have you used to determine its the same writer?

 

[firedragon]

Please note, you did not give me any information at all, on why John is not the writer of the five books.

I didnt claim it was one author or many authors so you telling "I didnt give you any information" for something i have not claimed is nonsensical brother.

You keep claiming its one author. I keep asking you what criticism have you used to determine that. You still have not given a single answer.

 

[Audie]

I didnt claim it was one author or many authors so you telling "I didnt give you any information" for something i claimed is nonsensical brother.

You keep claiming its one author. I keep asking you what criticism have you used to determine that. You still have not given a single answer.

Odd how these guys are so able to understand the bible,
and the works of "scholars" but get addled with the simplest
of questions or problems from us ordinary folks.

 

[firedragon]

The word is not being used here to compare two persons, so it doesn't refer to aged.

Who said "elder" means "aged"?

 

[firedragon]

It is true the disciple did not identify himself as John, but there is no reason to think it is not, just because the writer uses a creative style of narrating.

What kind of reasoning is that?

1. The disciple doesnt claim to be John
2. But there is no reason to think its not john.
3. So It must be John

If you cant see that reasoning pattern doesnt make any sense there is no point reasoning because the reasoning prowess is dried up.

One could turn around and say The disciple doesnt claim to be Kathrusim, but there is no reason to think its not kathrusim so it must be Kathrusim.

Note: When someone doesnt claim to be Kathrusim, you cant assert he is indeed Kathrusim purely because there is no reason to think he is not. Its absurd. You find an anonymous book thats 150 years old and you assume a character who is not named at all in that book is indeed a character you wish him to be like John or whatever and then make a case that "there is no reason to think otherwise". It doesnt work that way. You have to provide evidence that this character is indeed John. Evidence is internal evidence from within the text because that is whats genuine scholarship.

 

[nPeace]

In order to decide this about the writer, what form of criticism have you used? Thats the question. You are not answering that question. You are repeating the same statement.

What form of criticism have you used to determine its the same writer?

Just my opinion, but I don't think you are asking the question correctly.
I would not have asked the question that way.
Nevertheless, that's just me.

Both the Gospel, and the first letter are written in simple Greek and use contrasting figures, such as light and darkness, life and death, truth and lies, love and hate.
There are similar phrases and expressions, such as those...
1 John 1:1 Compare John 1:1,14

1 John 1:4 Compare John 16:24 & 2 John 1:12

1 John 1:6-7 Compare John 3:19-21

1 John 2:7 Compare John 13:34-35 & 2 John 1:5

1 John 3:8 Compare John 8:44

1 John 3:14 Compare John 5:24

1 John 4:2, 3 Compare 2 John 1:7

1 John 4:6 Compare John 8:47

1 John 4:9 Compare John 1:14, 18 ; 3:16

1 John 5:3 Compare John 14:23 & 2 John 1:6

1 John 5:9 Compare John 5:32, 37

1 John 5:12 Compare John 3:36

In the first verses of both 2 John and 3 John the writer identifies himself as "the elder."
Other similarities are found in verse 1, and 4 of both letters. and both have similar conclusions.

The confirmation of eyewitness testimony is mentioned at 1 John 1:1-4.

The writer of the letters, is clearly an elder, not unlikely an apostle.

Oh. i see, so you are just the questioner.
Okay, I'm done. No need to stretch this to a never ending "Prove this" session.

 

[nPeace]

What kind of reasoning is that?

1. The disciple doesnt claim to be John
2. But there is no reason to think its not john.
3. So It must be John

If you cant see that reasoning pattern doesnt make any sense there is no point reasoning because the reasoning prowess is dried up.

One could turn around and say The disciple doesnt claim to be Kathrusim, but there is no reason to think its not kathrusim so it must be Kathrusim.

Note: When someone doesnt claim to be Kathrusim, you cant assert he is indeed Kathrusim purely because there is no reason to think he is not. Its absurd. You find an anonymous book thats 150 years old and you assume a character who is not named at all in that book is indeed a character you wish him to be like John or whatever and then make a case that "there is no reason to think otherwise". It doesnt work that way. You have to provide evidence that this character is indeed John. Evidence is internal evidence from within the text because that is whats genuine scholarship.

No No No No.
Don't just grab on to that, and run with it.
I identified reasons why it is John. You objected with the reasoning that the writer did not claim to be John, so that was my response to your objection.
In other words, ignoring the evidence and objecting based on the fact that the writer did not say, "I am John", is meaningless.
That's all I meant to say.
Sorry I didn't put it direct, in the first place.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What facts are those?

You first. You claimed to have facts. You do seem to realize that modern scholars probably have facts that back them up. The only reason that I can think of for such a deflection is a lack of facts on your side.

 

[nPeace]

You first. You claimed to have facts. You do seem to realize that modern scholars probably have facts that back them up. The only reason that I can think of for such a deflection is a lack of facts on your side.

I did. where were you... sleeping?

 

[firedragon]

Just my opinion, but I don't think you are asking the question correctly.
I would not have asked the question that way.
Nevertheless, that's just me.

You say that because you have not understood the question.

Google it. You will understand. Just make an effort. Dont pretend you know it well. There is no fault in not knowing something. But just be genuine and make a small effort to find out what it is.

the question: In order to claim that all of the Johannine books in the New Testament is done by one single author, what kind of "criticism" have you used?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I did. where were you... sleeping?

You gave no facts to me. I have seen verses that you have taken out of context and given strained interpretations of. Is that what you are calling "facts"?

 

[firedragon]

No No No No.
Don't just grab on to that, and run with it.
I identified reasons why it is John. You objected with the reasoning that the writer did not claim to be John, so that was my response to your objection.
In other words, ignoring the evidence and objecting based on the fact that the writer did not say, "I am John", is meaningless.
That's all I meant to say.
Sorry I didn't put it direct, in the first place.

No breother. you have nnot givenn any evidence. None. Brother, i keep telling you, someones claim centuries after a book is written out of faith statements and belief is not evidence. Is it so hard to understand?