djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
|
Post by djorno on Mar 24, 2023 14:39:52 GMT
I feel you’re straw manning the video. The presenter says “many biblical scholars date Matthew, Mark & Luke past 70AD for one main reason. Jesus’ prophecies regarding the destruction of Jerusalem and it’s temple.” The point he was making was specifically about the synoptic gospels, as was I, not including the GOJ. No "straw manning" on my part. I didn't ascribe to the speaker an argument he didn't make. You literally did. You really didn’t. Here’s what you said: “Instead, you prefer a video that starts out with a false assertion about those historians. What false assertion? The claim that historians have "one main reason" for dating GOJ after 70ADHere’s what the video actually says: “many biblical scholars date Matthew, Mark & Luke past 70AD for one main reason. Jesus’ prophecies regarding the destruction of Jerusalem and it’s temple.” The narrator was specifically referring only to Matthew, Mark and Luke(the Synoptics). You claimed he was referring to John. Again he was referring to the Synoptics. Have you read all of the literature and scholarship for and against the dating? You cited a link which gives liberal arguments for the late dating of John. Obviously they are not going to admit a presuppositional bias as part of their methodology used to determine date of authorship. You know what I think? I think the main reason you jumped in to oppose me is because you seem to have an axe to grind with me because I don’t celebrate gay marriage. It’s not my fault you’re bitter and can’t handle it when others disagree with your views.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 24, 2023 14:59:46 GMT
No "straw manning" on my part. I didn't ascribe to the speaker an argument he didn't make. You literally did. You really didn’t. I'm not going to go back and forth on this. There is no need to. Anyone interested can just listen to the first minute of the video to judge that the speaker is ascribing (with no evidence at all) post 70AD authorship proponents as primarily relying on the idea that Jesus couldn't have made a genuine prediction. That accusation against his opponents has been shown (in my link) as false.How absurd you are. Because the support you offer for your position is shown to be poor, you then pathetically resort to speculative slurs on the motivations of those with whom you have disagreements.
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
|
Post by djorno on Mar 24, 2023 15:45:49 GMT
[quote source="/post/5934914/thread" author =" djorno " timestamp="1679668792"]You literally did. You really didn’t. You’re actually doubling down on this? Really? Dude, how is stating the narrator talks about scholars regarding GOJ when in actual fact the narrator is referring to the Synoptics, not straw manning the narrator? Didn’t have you down as the dishonest type tbh. My friend I’m not stupid. You and Gadreel clearly have an axe to grind here and are still bitter that I don’t conform to degenerate left wing ideals. The ironic thing is I’m the one showing the compassion towards homosexuals.
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Mar 24, 2023 20:17:02 GMT
[quote source="/post/5934914/thread" author =" djorno " timestamp="1679668792"]You literally did. You really didn’t. You’re actually doubling down on this? Really? Dude, how is stating the narrator talks about scholars regarding GOJ when in actual fact the narrator is referring to the Synoptics, not straw manning the narrator? Didn’t have you down as the dishonest type tbh. My friend I’m not stupid. You and Gadreel clearly have an axe to grind here and are still bitter that I don’t conform to degenerate left wing ideals. The ironic thing is I’m the one showing the compassion towards homosexuals. You are.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 26, 2023 18:42:33 GMT
So just as I predicted…“because most historians say so” is what you’re offering? It’s also the “accepted narrative” that the Bible condemns homosexual acts as sin. But you’re only willing to go with the consensus when it suits you, right? The evidence for earlier dating is far more compelling imo: The accepted narrative is the de facto correct answer until evidence shows otherwise, the accepted narrative that the gospels are far more recent than you think is something you have to challenge, the previously accepted narrative that the bible condemns homosexuality has been challenged and the evidence suggests it is an incorrect stance. You really are not very good at this are you?
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 26, 2023 18:43:47 GMT
[quote source="/post/5934914/thread" author =" djorno " timestamp="1679668792"]You literally did. You really didn’t. You’re actually doubling down on this? Really? Dude, how is stating the narrator talks about scholars regarding GOJ when in actual fact the narrator is referring to the Synoptics, not straw manning the narrator? Didn’t have you down as the dishonest type tbh. My friend I’m not stupid. You and Gadreel clearly have an axe to grind here and are still bitter that I don’t conform to degenerate left wing ideals. The ironic thing is I’m the one showing the compassion towards homosexuals. But dude, you are stupid, like fucking stupid.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Mar 26, 2023 22:42:45 GMT
My friend I’m not stupid. You are. That didn't take long.
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
|
Post by djorno on Mar 27, 2023 11:57:58 GMT
So just as I predicted…“because most historians say so” is what you’re offering? It’s also the “accepted narrative” that the Bible condemns homosexual acts as sin. But you’re only willing to go with the consensus when it suits you, right? The evidence for earlier dating is far more compelling imo: The accepted narrative is the de facto correct answer until evidence shows otherwise, the accepted narrative that the gospels are far more recent than you think is something you have to challenge, the previously accepted narrative that the bible condemns homosexuality has been challenged and the evidence suggests it is an incorrect stance. You really are not very good at this are you? There is evidence that does show otherwise. And no it doesn’t suggest anything of the sort.
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Mar 27, 2023 12:07:32 GMT
The accepted narrative is the de facto correct answer until evidence shows otherwise, the accepted narrative that the gospels are far more recent than you think is something you have to challenge, the previously accepted narrative that the bible condemns homosexuality has been challenged and the evidence suggests it is an incorrect stance. You really are not very good at this are you? There is evidence that does show otherwise. What is it?
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 27, 2023 19:18:37 GMT
The accepted narrative is the de facto correct answer until evidence shows otherwise, the accepted narrative that the gospels are far more recent than you think is something you have to challenge, the previously accepted narrative that the bible condemns homosexuality has been challenged and the evidence suggests it is an incorrect stance. You really are not very good at this are you? There is evidence that does show otherwise. And no it doesn’t suggest anything of the sort. No there is not and yes it does. I am really sorry that you are incapable of understanding what constitutes evidence, and also incapable of providing evidence.
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
|
Post by djorno on Mar 28, 2023 23:10:16 GMT
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Mar 29, 2023 4:39:37 GMT
What verb tense is used in the original Greek?
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
|
Post by djorno on Mar 29, 2023 8:27:28 GMT
What verb tense is used in the original Greek? Present tense. The Greek is “ἐστί ἐν”. Meaning ““there is in/at”.
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Mar 29, 2023 8:36:47 GMT
What verb tense is used in the original Greek? Present tense. The Greek is “ἐστί ἐν”. Meaning ““there is in/at”. So how do you know the Sheep's Gate was destroyed by 70AD, or destroyed at all? The Romans didn't level the entire city because much of it is still in exist today.
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
|
Post by djorno on Mar 29, 2023 9:57:08 GMT
Present tense. The Greek is “ἐστί ἐν”. Meaning ““there is in/at”. So how do you know the Sheep's Gate was destroyed by 70AD, or destroyed at all? The Romans didn't level the entire city because much of it is still in exist today. Through historians like Josephus and archeological discovers. In the late 19th century they excavated what most archeologists today believe to be the remains of what was once the Bethesda pool.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Mar 29, 2023 13:30:49 GMT
Well just about every bit of internal and external evidence available points John the apostle being the author. Btw I do not believe the GOJ was written 70 years after Christ. Pity for you then that scholarship goes by the study of facts, rather than your inane and uninformed opinion. www.britannica.com/topic/Gospel-According-to-Johnwww.grin.com/document/503108#:~:text=The%20testimony%20of%20early%20Church,of%20the%20Gospel%20of%20John.&text=Irenaeus%20(c.,at%20Ephesus%20in%20Asia%20(Haer. I'm beginning to agree with Gadreel that you sound more and more like a poe, not any sort of actual believer who has a clue regarding anything relating to their supposed beliefs.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Mar 29, 2023 13:54:17 GMT
My understanding of John's Gospel is that it seems to have been the work of an early Christian community based on the words of their supposed founder who was claimed to be an eyewitness, referred to as the Beloved Disciple (usually identified as John, but other candidates have been suggested). It's uncertain though if they were really founded by such a figure and even if they were, it seems there had been so many revisions and theological advances that much of what finally emerged as what we now know as the Gospel of John may well have had very little of "John"'s testimony left in it.
As usual with the Gospels is we just don't know how reliable they are. Even if they did have significant input from eye-witnesses, eye witnesses are not always reliable, especially when they have a hefty stake in wanting to convince others of a particular point of view.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 29, 2023 19:39:30 GMT
what I mean is that you outright dismiss evidence without addressing it, it shows you are not really interested in finding out what the other side is actually saying.
|
|