Correctness and Accuracy; Belief and Fact

Per DHK:

"You put forth the proposition that John did not write the Gsopel of John."

Actually, what I wrote was that no one really knows the identity of the individual or individuals who actaully wrote the book of John.

And I cited authoritative sources for this proposition, with quotes. Neither DHK, nor the mighty steaver, nor anyone else offered any scientific proof to contradict the quotes or sources.

Regarding ethe definition of the word, "faith", I stated:

"He (referring to DHK), did this with the definition of the word "faith". When it was pointed out that he obtained his definition from an obscure opinion site which links to another site for the definition, a site called "emotional literacy"; and it was further ponted out that even his definition from his source used the word "belief" to define "faith", he never responded to the issue again."

Right above, in the middle of this page, of this page, DHK again repeats his definition of "faith":

"1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

That is the first definition (the primary one) given from the American Heritage Dictionary."

That's right, DHK, you used the word "belief" to define "faith." Confident belief is still belief.

So, even though DHK cited one reliable source and one obscure opinion text (cited in his earlier posting and noted in my follow up) for his source for the definition (emotional literacy.com), it still uses the word "belief" to define the meaning of the word "faith." That debate is therefore over.

Several pages back I posted quotes from several sources (sources were referenced), which concluded that no one knows for sure who wrote the book of John. The sources quoted on my posting clearly state that they considered intrinsic and extrinsic evidence.

Neither DHK, steaver nor anyone else has quoted any scientific authority to contradict these sources.

 

DHK wrote:

"What scientific data did you wish me to post: from endocrinology, histology, cellular biology, pharmacology, etc."

In response I wrote:

"By the way, DHK, if you desire to use the science of endocrinology, pharmacology or biology to prove who wrote the book of John, go for it."

The best DHK was able to respond with was:

"I am sorry you are further proving yourself to be so ignorant in the area of science."

I further wrote:

"By the way, just so the record is clear, I am making no demands that DHK or steaver do anything. You have already demonstrated that you cannot prove who wrote the texts and have basically given up on the debate started with the original posting."

Case closed.

 

Remember folks, this is religion and not science. It is based on belief, i.e. "faith."

It it were easy to demonstrate it by scientific fact it would not be a faith based belief.

In other words, if it were easy to prove the identity of the author of the book of John, it would not be so easily challenged and it would not be legitimately questioned by scientific and historical scholars.

Remember, it is not necessary to have any scientific proof as to the identity of who wrote the book of John to have faith.

steaver claims that his faith is based on truth. Where is his scientific authority as to his "truth" regarding the identity of the person who physically wrote the book of John. He has none, or else he, of all people, would have cited it. The only thing steaver ever cites is scriptures. Well, the Bible is a good book, but its not the only book. He is a good Christian Soldier, though.

 

I continue to challenge all comers to cite a scientific authority which conclusively proves the identity of the person who wrote the book of John. Any other posting is mere theological rhetoric and therefore non-responsive to the original topic of this posting.

If something is based on science, then it does not require faith to understand it; mere logic will suffice. On the other hand, any religion, Christian or other, requires faith, i.e. "belief," in its members.

No proof and no science is required; just faith, and that's the true beauty of it.

 

I understand your thinking, DHK. The book of John must have been written by John, or else why would it be referred to as the book of John?

DHK, I'm sorry if you do not like the following quotes and their sources, but you are encouraged to produce some scientific contradiction and cite your source.

"The identity of John has remained a mystery, although tradition has it that he is "the disciple that Jesus loved" mentioned in John 13:23. But here is a curious thing. In the entire gospel, John never mentions his own name (although he does mention other gospel writers). His purpose is to exalt the deity of Jesus. It seems out of character for him to pat himself on the back in that one verse, if in fact he was John the apostle.

William Barclay gives us an elegant answer. He states outright that even if John was not the direct author of the book, it was at least written under his authority. The book likely dates from about 100 AD, the last of the books to be written. If this dating is accurate, John would have been very old. Barclay posits that it was probably a group writing remembrances from John's fading memories, and it was they who described John as the disciple Jesus loved.."

RESOURCES:

The Literary Guide to the Bible, edited by Robert Alter and Frank Kermode, Belknap Press, 1987
The Gospel of John, by William Barclay, Westminster John Knox Press, 1975
The Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible, by Robin Lane Fox, Knopf, 1992
The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and Christian Origins, by Burton Mack, HarperSanFrancisco, 1993
Testament, by David Morell, Warner Books, 1993
The Synoptic Gospels, by Keith F. Nickle, John Knox Press, 1980
The Historical Figure of Jesus, by E.P. Sanders, Penguin Books, 1993
The Catholic Encyclopedia - online at www.newadvent.org/cathen/

By the way, can you explain what you mean when you say that the above Barclay quote is taken out of context? Can you cite any example of how it was taken out of context?

Of course you can throw out the reference to the Catholic source, cause every good Christian knows that Catholics are not really Christians, right?

Go ahead and show me the money. Show me your scientific evidence as to the identity of the person who actually wrote the book of John.

 

I'm not a libral but DHK claims that liberals are infidels. I think I'll borrow that one for future use. I guess that if I was a liberal that DHK's statement might be considered "trolling." Hmmmm . . .food for thought.

 

If liberals are infidels, does that mean that muslims, by their faith, should kill them?

 

By the way, DHK, it is curious that you state that I, "you feel that you are smarter than the dictionary and dismiss the dictionary's definition of faith outright without any valid reason, only shows the extent of your arrogance."

When what I actaully stated is: (see next reply)

 

For those who are interested, using one of your (DHK's) cited sources for the definition of faith (www.yourdictionary.com), the number 1 definition listed is:

1. "Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea or thing."

2. "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."

The number 3 definition at your cited source is:

3. "Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping the faith with ones supporters."

The number 4 definition from your cited source is:

4. "often faith Christianity. The theoretical virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will."

The number 5 definition from your cited source is:

5. "The body of a dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith."

The number 6 definition from your cited source is:

6. "A set of principles or beliefs."

It should be further noted that the single (only one of these) definition you referenced uses the word "belief" to define "faith."

My challenge to you was to cite an authoritative source for the definition of the word "faith" which does not use the word "belief" to define faith. This you have clearly not done.

 

I ask DHK to back up his statements with scientific evidence and his only response is that I am an unbeliever and an infidel.

Yeah, how dare anyone ask DHK to back up his statements. It's always much easier to call the challenger names, than to actually debate the topic.

 

This debate topic is not really about who can quote his/her interpretation of the scriptures, but that little fact does not seem to impact some writer's basic urge to just quote scriptures and then give his interpretation of the meaning of the quotes. Does it occur to him that quoting from the scriptures is mostly irrelevant to the question of the actual authorship of the book of John? I did refer to a quote from the book of John in the Barclay quote, cited on the last page.

 

Also, I checked the first page, cause I wanted to make sure and yep, I verified it, this forum is not about "what is science?" But if DHK has an opinion on what constitutes science, I'm fairly certain that he will reveal it sooner or later.