Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 03/20/04 1:23pm
In reply to:
QUITTNER
's message, "Re parts of the gospel of John." on 03/19/04 2:26pm
>>>Wade A. Tisthammer, you wrote in part: >>> No, Jesus
>said he was God. Remember that John's gospel is based
>on the written eyewitness testimony of one of the
>apostles (see John 21:24) though the book itself may
>have been compiled at a later date. See also the
>present tense used in John 5:2, implying that at least
>this part of the book was written before 70 C.E. ...
><<<
>..... I'm looking at volume nine (published by
>Abingdon Press in 1995) of "The New Interpreter's
>Bible", pages 862f. As part of the commentary on
>John 21:24 it says :"... v. 24a stresses the
>connection between this Gospel and the beloved
>disciple's witness, while at the same time seeming to
>attribute the actual authorship of this Gospel to
>someone other than the beloved disciple himself. ...
Maybe. It could also be an editorial addition. Though I partially agree with the authorship idea. I think somebody may have complied the writing of John.
>John 21:24 thus has the same function as 19:35: to
>point to the beloved disciple as the source of the
>traditions about Jesus that are interpreted in the
>Gospel. ..."
>..... I see no evidence that there ever was a written
>testimony of one of the apostles in this regard.
Then you might want to read John 21:24 again. There is defininitely an eyewitness connection here. And don't forget the present tense in present tense used in John 5:2.
>..... "Second, who is the 'we' of v. 24b? Again, if
>John 21 is taken as an integral part of the Gospel,
>this 'we' cannot be read as a reference to the
>redactor. Instead, this 'we' shuld be read in the
>light of the 'we' of 1:14-18. ...
I think that might be a reasonable possibility.
>..... I see no evidence that the author wrote any part
>of the gospel before the year 70.
Then you might want to look at the evidence I proffered.
>On page 505 it says:
>"... suggests 75-80 CE as the earliest possible
>date of composition; ..."
Perhaps so. But this is the book as a whole, not select parts before compilation.
>..... There were no tape recorders available in
>biblical times, and the actual words of Jesus have
>been disputed by scholars.
It's true there were no tape recorders, but Jews were famous for memorizing words of their teachers due to the oral culture of the time. They certainly had the ability to transmit the teachings of Jesus accurately within the lifetimes of the eyewitnesses. Also, it's customary to record the teachings of respected teachers, hence the Q hypothesis which existed before any of the gospels were written.
>I doubt that Jesus ever
>said that he himself is God.
On what grounds?
>He prayed to the father,
>the God of the Jews, never to himself.
That doesn't mean he isn't God if (especially) he considered God his own Father, since that would make himself equal with God.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 