Myth Or History?

[muhammad_isa]

Wikipedia is one of the least biased sources due to the ability of it to be edited by anyone that can support his work.
...
The conclusion of the Wiki article appears to be that the Apostle John was not the author, but that those works were written by his followers.

I agree .. wiki is a valuable source of knowledge for both disbelievers and believers alike.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Yes... I read it.

There are just as many sites that declares that it was John.

sites???
Why don't you give us the opinions of Tom, Dick or Harry on youtube?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I agree .. wiki is a valuable source of knowledge for both disbelievers and believers alike.

Yes, edits by flaming atheists are removed as quickly as ones by holy rollers. It can also be a good starting point since many sources are linked so that anyone can read them.

 

[Kenny]

LOL! You still don't know what a strawman is.

You took on a burden of proof with your claims. What strawman did I use?

And I asked you a question that you dodged. Evidence is not needed for a question.

and still no supportive documentation... stay on track, my dear friend

 

[Kenny]

Wow! You are amazingly blind here. A religious person pushing an agenda is not biased? Since when?


EDIT: And you seem to have forgotten that I did adopt the one unbiased source that you used. Would that be good enough?

still waaaaiting!

 

[Subduction Zone]

and still no supportive documentation... stay on track, my dear friend

What part did you not understand? Just tell me and I will help you out.

 

[Subduction Zone]

still waaaaiting!

Oh dear. Back to being rude. Why do so many Christians need to be reminded of1 Peter 3 15?

 

[Kenny]

Oh dear. Back to being rude. Why do so many Christians need to be reminded of1 Peter 3 15?

And here is your famous Coup d'état. Why? Because when you run out of runway, you go on the attack. Love it!

 

[Subduction Zone]

And here is your famous Coup d'état. Why? Because when you run out of runway, you go on the attack. Love it!

No, I just want to be clear on what part of rather common knowledge that you are lacking. I made an offer. If anything you are running away. By the way, why the rudeness? You did not check out the verse provided, did you.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Nothing like biased based wikipedia .

That's more than a little childish and unwarranted, but I'm sure you do your best.

Since you feel compelled to dismiss Wikipedia, let me suggest that you find a copy of Udo Schnelle's

The History and Theology of The New Testament Writings
​

Schnelle addresses the question at hand in section 8.4. The First Letter of John.

At the end of section 8.4.2 Author, he summarizes ...

Language, the world of theological concepts presupposed, and the different situation point to the conclusion that 1 John and the Gospel are by different authors. [page 456; emphasis in the original - JS]​

Then, at the end of the subsequent section 8.4.3 Place and Time of Composition, he concludes ...

1 John was thus probably written before the Gospel, but after 2-3 John. We may take the time of writing to be ca. 95 CE, and again consider Ephesys, the locus of the Johannine school as its probable point of origin. Papius knew 1 John (cf. Eusebius HE 3.39.17), which is documented for the first time in Polycarp (cf.1 John 4.2 and Polycarp Phil. 7.2). [page 459]
​

I hope this helped.

 

[pearl]

That's why supernatural elements disappeared with the advent of historiography and documented history.

You either believe that faith is 'true' or you don't. Supernatural elements did not disappear, but understood as narrative in order to understand the intent of the author, that myths are untrue is a misunderstanding of that literary form. As the theology of ancient civilizations, myths present religious mysteries in a way that can be understood by humans. To us, the stories can seem silly, even preposterous. But myths were not something silly to the ancients; they helped explain why life was the way it was.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You either believe that faith is 'true' or you don't. Supernatural elements did not disappear, but understood as narrative in order to understand the intent of the author, ...

I find it to be an amazing expression of hubris to pretend to understand the intent of an author - or, far more likely, a succession of authors - propagating oral lore in the long dead idiom and culture of millennia past.

 

[Left Coast]

If we are going back to Kings, I will have to go back to my original statement:

That statement is responsive to neither my immediate question I just asked you nor my original replies explaining to you why this alleged prophecy doesn't fit the bill.

Some generic appeal to "archaeological evidence" doesn't get you to "this is an eyewitness narrative." Nor does it address the implausibility of the narrative nor the fact that all available internal and external evidence indicates that this "prophecy" was post-dated.

You're gonna have to do better than that, Kenny.

 

[Left Coast]

Why the selective reading?

Selective reading? You mean ability to critically evaluate the veracity of a source?

 

[pearl]

I find it to be an amazing expression of hubris to pretend to understand the intent of an author - or, far more likely, a succession of authors - propagating oral lore in the long dead idiom and culture of millennia past.

Are you trying to say there is no such literary form as 'story' throughout the Hebrew Testament?
'To acknowledge only the literal of the Torah, is to 'see only her outer garment.' You might be confusing literal truth with a literalist interpretation.

Rabbi Shimon said: “Woe to the person who says that the Torah comes to give instructions and tell descriptive stories and simple tales. … Every word in the Torah reflects higher wisdom and higher secrets… The narratives of the Torah are only the outer clothing of the Torah. Whoever thinks that this outer clothing is, in fact, the Torah and there is nothing underneath the clothing is spiritually backward and has no portion in the World to Come…[1] (Zohar, Bemidbar, Behaalotecha, p. 148b)
A Seder Without History: The Exodus Story is an Outer Garment - TheTorah.com

 

[InChrist]

16 Historical Characters From Ancient Mythology Who Actually Existed In Real Life:

https://historycollection.com/16-hi...thology-who-actually-existed-in-real-life/13/

That link is interesting. As far as Robin Hood goes; he never was connected with spiritually or addressed God’s purpose for humanity, how to attain eternal life, etc. The so-called Egyptian gods and/or the kings or pharaohs associated with them were shown to be inferior, fake gods when confronted by the biblical God of Israel, Who as the Creator of heaven and earth has stated repeatedly, “There is no other God”.
( Isaiah 44:6, 44:8; 45:5, 18-23; 46:9)

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

16 Historical Characters From Ancient Mythology Who Actually Existed In Real Life:

https://historycollection.com/16-hi...thology-who-actually-existed-in-real-life/13/

I decided to add this article to my ongoing information that I found demonstrating that paganism had a significant impact on the Bible and Christianity. I think a few of the stories about Jesus, for instance, were copied from Greek mythology and other pagan religions.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Are you trying to say there is no such literary form as 'story' throughout the Hebrew Testament?

That would reflect a pretty ignorant -- if not agenda-driven -- reading of my post. One can only hope that you are capable of something a bit better when reading Torah.

 

[Kenny]

That statement is responsive to neither my immediate question I just asked you nor my original replies explaining to you why this alleged prophecy doesn't fit the bill.

Some generic appeal to "archaeological evidence" doesn't get you to "this is an eyewitness narrative." Nor does it address the implausibility of the narrative nor the fact that all available internal and external evidence indicates that this "prophecy" was post-dated.

You're gonna have to do better than that, Kenny.

I really don't have to "try" as I am not trying to convince you.

I don't any "generic" position here nor have you established such a statement.

Please present internal evidence.

As you said, you will have to do better than that.

 

[Left Coast]

I really don't have to "try" as I am not trying to convince you.

I don't any "generic" position here nor have you established such a statement.

You cited "archaeological evidence" without saying what it is. Ie, generic. Vague. Non-specific. Pick your adjective.

Please present internal evidence.

Go back and read the first reply I provided you and the points I made about the passage that you tried to hand wave away.

As you said, you will have to do better than that.

Kenny, you're the person claiming you have prophecies that meet the criteria of believability I provided you. The burden of proof here is on you. Trying to pass the buck is not a good look for you.