Metacrock wrote:
He does not have to have written the fourth Gospel to be an eye witness. my view is the fourth was began by the BD who was Lazarus.
Your evidence for this is what?
why would I need evidence to prove that that's my view? saying it's my view proves it is.
Nice dodge there. Of course, he's not asking you to verify your position, but to ground your position in evidence. What is your evidence that "the fourth was began by the BD who was Lazarus."
First: What is your evidence that the fourth Gospel was "began by" the Beloved Disciple?
Second: What is your evidence that Lazarus was the Beloved Disciple?
Meta:why would I need evidence to prove that that's my view? saying it's my view proves it is.
HawthorneNice dodge there. Of course, he's not asking you to verify your position, but to ground your position in evidence. What is your evidence that "the fourth was began by the BD who was Lazarus."
I know that's what he meant but he didn't say it. It said something quite different. But I have backed my stuff with far more evidence than most o you all. Look back at the early part of the thread the 8 levels of verification that I liked to is backed by 45 scholars that it draws upon.
First: What is your evidence that the fourth Gospel was "began by" the Beloved Disciple?
Second: What is your evidence that Lazarus was the Beloved Disciple?
First of all those are not exactly lynch pens to my overall case. those are minor points the whole does not stand or fall with them.
In the Gospel Lazarus is called the believed disciple.John 11:5: "Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus".[19] John 11:3 is also relevant: "Therefore his sisters sent unto him, saying, Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick."
We know from the last chapter that the BD is said to be the author. If Lazarus is the BD that makes him the original author. That it was began by one guy and edited by many more is obvious and every scholars there is accepts that. The elders in the final chapter imply it.
sorry to be so pedantic. I said "my view is" you said "what's the evidence for this" so being the pedantic fart that I am... it's a curse, and a blessing.
An argument can be made that the BD, internally, refers to Lazarus, but the author never claims to be the BD. That's an appendix added by others. It's also obvious that Lazarus is a fictional character - a liturgical device designed to be an exemplar of Christian conversion and salvation. He is a stand-in for the audience. The "beloved" ones who die to sin and are reborn.
As for the appendix, you need better evidence than that. Spurious claims about authorship are common in early Christian writings. The Gospel of Thomas claims right up front that it was written by Judas Didymus Thomas, the twin brother of Jesus. What makes the appendix of GJohn any more credible than the preface to GThomas?
Metacrock wrote:sorry to be so pedantic. I said "my view is" you said "what's the evidence for this" so being the pedantic fart that I am... it's a curse, and a blessing.
A true pedant would know that a demonstrative pronoun substitutes for a noun when the noun can be understood from the context. (He would also know the true meaning of "pedantic" and be able to show minimal competence in punctuation.) You just demonstrated grammatical and semantic ignorance and perverse silliness. You need a smiley wearing a dunce cap.
vridar.orgMusings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
Metacrock wrote:sorry to be so pedantic. I said "my view is" you said "what's the evidence for this" so being the pedantic fart that I am... it's a curse, and a blessing.
A true pedant would know that a demonstrative pronoun substitutes for a noun when the noun can be understood from the context. (He would also know the true meaning of "pedantic" and be able to show minimal competence in punctuation.) You just demonstrated grammatical and semantic ignorance and perverse silliness. You need a smiley wearing a dunce cap.
so what you are trying to suggest is that I really didn't know what he meant becuase I'm a Chrsitians and are stupid so therefore I don't know grammar. That's your little idea of a clever come back?
a true comedian would know humor when he sees. but then little atheists don't have humor. they just literalistic minds that take stuff literally and the urge to mock. funny now illiterate people take stuff literally. how does that work?
Diogenes the Cynic wrote:An argument can be made that the BD, internally, refers to Lazarus, but the author never claims to be the BD. That's an appendix added by others. It's also obvious that Lazarus is a fictional character - a liturgical device designed to be an exemplar of Christian conversion and salvation. He is a stand-in for the audience. The "beloved" ones who die to sin and are reborn.
true but they are obviously the redactors. that means they are last ones to edit. what's is there because they let it be there. they are in effect the author.
As for the appendix, you need better evidence than that. Spurious claims about authorship are common in early Christian writings. The Gospel of Thomas claims right up front that it was written by Judas Didymus Thomas, the twin brother of Jesus. What makes the appendix of GJohn any more credible than the preface to GThomas?
what makes it spurious ace? claims to authorship. do you have any idea what you are talking about? there is no claim to authorship. you are actual trying to say that the redactors didn't know who the leader of their community was. that's brilliant.
apparently you didn't see what I said about the book did not include "by John" when it was first put about. that was put on latter, even after the committee of redactors.
there is no page in that says "this is by John" that means not on a par with any text you are talking about.
