Author Topic: The gospel of John..  (Read 5250 times)

ippy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10246
Re: The gospel of John..
« Reply #50 on: November 22, 2015, 12:34:56 PM »
ippy, the majority of inhabitants of 1st century would not have been able to write much beyond their names: their culture was largely oral rather than literary.  The problems that faced the police after Hillsborough - who had been brought up in a highly literary tradition - would therefore not have applied in 1st Century Palestine.  The oral tradition had a whole host of mechanisms that allowed individuals to learn, remember and recount stories word for word over time that we have largely lost in our literary culture.  One small, but good example where the oral works well, even today, is when a parent reads the same bedtime story to a child who doesn't read, but who listens closely and learns the text by heart.  As soon as the parent makes a mistake or changes the wording, they are quickly corrected by the child.

"when a parent reads the same bedtime story to a child who doesn't read, but who listens closely and learns the text by heart.  As soon as the parent makes a mistake or changes the wording, they are quickly corrected by the child".

Hope, is this an admission at last, get em while they're young? Well at least a part of the method?

Even more seriously, I notice Vlad has picked up your habit of misrepresentation, the snippet of my post you were responding to was accompanied by this lot as follows:

"All of our police carry notebooks with numbered pages and they are encouraged to take and keep notes at the earliest opportunity on each occasion, even so the available evidence for the happenings on the day at Hillsborough still managed to be a mess of information".

ippy

P S Like the example of the child being read to above.

Hope

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 25569
    • Tools With A Mission
Re: The gospel of John..
« Reply #51 on: November 22, 2015, 06:56:35 PM »
"when a parent reads the same bedtime story to a child who doesn't read, but who listens closely and learns the text by heart.  As soon as the parent makes a mistake or changes the wording, they are quickly corrected by the child".

Hope, is this an admission at last, get em while they're young? Well at least a part of the method?
No, its a well-known child-development process.

Quote
Even more seriously, I notice Vlad has picked up your habit of misrepresentation, the snippet of my post you were responding to was accompanied by this lot as follows:

"All of our police carry notebooks with numbered pages and they are encouraged to take and keep notes at the earliest opportunity on each occasion, even so the available evidence for the happenings on the day at Hillsborough still managed to be a mess of information".
Lest you misread my post, I did make reference to this comment in it.  I've reproduced what I wrote for you
Quote
The problems that faced the police after Hillsborough - who had been brought up in a highly literary tradition - would therefore not have applied in 1st Century Palestine.
Are your, or your friends'/relatives', garages, lofts or sheds full of unused DIY gear, sewing/knitting machines or fabric and haberdashery stuff?

Lists of what is needed and a search engine to find your nearest collector (scroll to bottom for latter) are here:  http://www.twam.uk/donate-tools

jeremyp

  • Admin Support
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20994
Re: The gospel of John..
« Reply #52 on: November 22, 2015, 10:14:54 PM »
Studies of modern oral communities have indicated that those risks are moderated by the fact that the communities' stories are told in very strict formats and patterns, that people learn and retain
What's this got to do with the gospels?

04W24W0W04100000W4 0000110W02000040100 0W00000000010100001 1W0011200010040040 000W1W3000000000000 0400000000000001004W
This post and all of JeremyP's posts words certified 100% divinely inspired* -- signed God.
*Platinum infallibility package, terms and conditions may ap

Sassy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10832
Re: The gospel of John..
« Reply #53 on: November 23, 2015, 12:10:01 AM »
...and why it is poison.

Point a: ALL the 'gospels', including "John" were written by persons unknown who had never witnessed this "christ" and/or "Jesus".

Point b:

John was the last gospel to be constructed as a Greek exercise to coalesce all the other, numerous gospels about a christ that were being touted as the truth.

None of the gospel writers truely knew of the christ they were chatting about.

It is obvious to most of us that they were written to flesh out the Greek "Christ" that Paul was propagating.

Why is this so difficult for Christians to grasp?

I believe that if we take the knowledge of the full bible in context we can see why people would know the living Christ and be able to write about him.
You have no evidence that John did not write this gospel.
Christianity, it is more than a mere belief or a set of tenets. It is about a living relationship with the living God, the same way as Christ had with God.

The book of John relates to the things Christ said rather than the things Christ did.
What makes Christianity different is the Spirit now being in man and man knowing God through the Spirit.

As all original scripture was given to man from God by the power of the Holy Spirit. You have to see that as Christians... we accept the knowledge that Christ is alive and that
the Holy Spirit can impart any knowledge to any man.

Where you going to go now? Will you remain with your own train of thoughts or explore that which has been revealed to you?
We know we have to work together to abolish war and terrorism to create a compassionate  world in which Justice and peace prevail. Love ;D   Einstein
 "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Littleroses

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20529
Re: The gospel of John..
« Reply #54 on: November 23, 2015, 01:47:12 PM »
As all original scripture was given to man from God by the power of the Holy Spirit. You have to see that as Christians... we accept the knowledge that Christ is alive and that
the Holy Spirit can impart any knowledge to any man.


That statement has absolutely no evidence to back it up! ::)
“What seems like a good idea at the time, more often than not bites the dust spectacularly.” RJG

Dicky Underpants

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3182
Re: The gospel of John..
« Reply #55 on: November 23, 2015, 04:42:47 PM »
As has been pointed to before, your assertion that the early Christians reliably communicated their oral histories to each other is wholly without foundation and what evidence we do have shows that they were quite happy to play fast and loose with their sources in order to make a point.
And these are the least of the problems that the gospels exhibit.

However, there is the important criterion of embarrassment: if something gets recorded that puts Jesus in an unfavourable light, when the evangelists could have uniformly kept praising him to the skies, then there is a possibility that those texts reflect accurate reportage.

Hope

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 25569
    • Tools With A Mission
Re: The gospel of John..
« Reply #56 on: November 23, 2015, 05:08:07 PM »
What's this got to do with the gospels?
Oral, as opposed to literate, communities.  That's what it has to do with the gospels.  As several people have so correctly pointed out oveer the years, the Gospels weren't written down at the time of the events they portray, but 30 or 40 years later.  As anthropologists and linguists have pointed out don the years, people from oral communities have and had very specialised techniques for telling their stories so that they would remain the same down the centuries. 

Obviously, for most such communities those stories were and are unique to a given community, so there has been no need for additional cultural explanation (until recently, perhaps).  The difference for the Christian story is that it was and is for far more than a single community or culture, and therefore some form of additional background information has been written into the different versions (hence the 3 synoptic Gospels), depending on the audience they were written for.
Are your, or your friends'/relatives', garages, lofts or sheds full of unused DIY gear, sewing/knitting machines or fabric and haberdashery stuff?

Lists of what is needed and a search engine to find your nearest collector (scroll to bottom for latter) are here:  http://www.twam.uk/donate-tools

Outrider

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11062
Re: The gospel of John..
« Reply #57 on: November 23, 2015, 05:15:53 PM »
Oral, as opposed to literate, communities.  That's what it has to do with the gospels.  As several people have so correctly pointed out oveer the years, the Gospels weren't written down at the time of the events they portray, but 30 or 40 years later.  As anthropologists and linguists have pointed out don the years, people from oral communities have and had very specialised techniques for telling their stories so that they would remain the same down the centuries.

And as those same people have pointed out, those anthropologists have well documented the shifts and changes that occur in those oral traditions, how some fundamental themes are retained but others are changed with changing social mores, and detail is rarely reliably preserved. 

Quote
Obviously, for most such communities those stories were and are unique to a given community, so there has been no need for additional cultural explanation (until recently, perhaps).  The difference for the Christian story is that it was and is for far more than a single community or culture, and therefore some form of additional background information has been written into the different versions (hence the 3 synoptic Gospels), depending on the audience they were written for.

You can tell it was for a broader, more modern audience because of the bronze aged attitude towards misogyny and magic that runs through it...

O.
Universes are forever, not just for creation...

New Atheism - because, apparently, there's a use-by date on unanswered questions.

Eminent Pedant, Interpreter of Heretical Writings, Unwarranted Harvester of Trite Nomenclature, Church of Debatable Saints

Spud

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4169
Re: The gospel of John..
« Reply #58 on: November 23, 2015, 05:41:42 PM »
...and why it is poison.

Point a: ALL the 'gospels', including "John" were written by persons unknown who had never witnessed this "christ" and/or "Jesus".

"All four gospels are apostolic. Matthew was the converted publican, and he wrote under the eyes of Peter and of the sons of Zebedee and of the brother of Jesus. Mark obeyed Peter. Luke lived with Paul. John dictated to a Greek secretary." Rosenstock-Huessy, Fruit of Lips, p.11.

Quote
Point b:

John was the last gospel to be constructed as a Greek exercise to coalesce all the other, numerous gospels about a christ that were being touted as the truth.

"John writes as an eye witness who knows the minutest details when he cares to mention them. The apostle is the author of the gospel. Therefore it carries authority." Ibid, p.11

Quote
None of the gospel writers truely knew of the christ they were chatting about.

It is obvious to most of us that they were written to flesh out the Greek "Christ" that Paul was propagating.

Why is this so difficult for Christians to grasp?


Littleroses

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20529
Re: The gospel of John..
« Reply #59 on: November 23, 2015, 05:43:56 PM »
"All four gospels are apostolic. Matthew was the converted publican, and he wrote under the eyes of Peter and of the sons of Zebedee and of the brother of Jesus. Mark obeyed Peter. Luke lived with Paul. John dictated to a Greek secretary." Rosenstock-Huessy, Fruit of Lips, p.11.

"John writes as an eye witness who knows the minutest details when he cares to mention them. The apostle is the author of the gospel. Therefore it carries authority." Ibid, p.11

Your opinion, NOT a fact! ::)
“What seems like a good idea at the time, more often than not bites the dust spectacularly.” RJG

Outrider

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11062
Re: The gospel of John..
« Reply #60 on: November 23, 2015, 08:20:38 PM »
"All four gospels are apostolic. Matthew was the converted publican, and he wrote under the eyes of Peter and of the sons of Zebedee and of the brother of Jesus. Mark obeyed Peter. Luke lived with Paul. John dictated to a Greek secretary." Rosenstock-Huessy, Fruit of Lips, p.11.

His outright rejection of the 'Q source' puts him at odds with the bulk of scholarly work on the Gospels, and his assertion that the Apostles wrote their own gospels is not supported by any evidence.

Quote
"John writes as an eye witness who knows the minutest details when he cares to mention them. The apostle is the author of the gospel. Therefore it carries authority." Ibid, p.11

Any good author will evoke that idea, that's the point of being a good author. If that's as much evidence as he can muster I can see why he's more highly regarded as a philosopher than as an historian.

O.
Universes are forever, not just for creation...

New Atheism - because, apparently, there's a use-by date on unanswered questions.

Eminent Pedant, Interpreter of Heretical Writings, Unwarranted Harvester of Trite Nomenclature, Church of Debatable Saints

Red Giant

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2040
Re: The gospel of John..
« Reply #61 on: November 23, 2015, 09:33:22 PM »
Oral, as opposed to literate, communities.  That's what it has to do with the gospels.  As several people have so correctly pointed out oveer the years, the Gospels weren't written down at the time of the events they portray, but 30 or 40 years later.  As anthropologists and linguists have pointed out don the years, people from oral communities have and had very specialised techniques for telling their stories so that they would remain the same down the centuries. 
So all we need now is the evidence that the first followers composed an epic poem about Jesus to enable them to memorise it for 40 years before they wrote it down.  Plus the explanation of why Paul didn't know the poem, and why they didn't write down the poem.

And why, if oral transmission is so brilliant, Matthew and Luke couldn't even agree on the Lord's Prayer, and Mark didn't include it at all.  Surely if anything was transmitted orally, that was, and it's not that hard to memorise if you say it every week.

BashfulAnthony

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7520
Re: The gospel of John..
« Reply #62 on: November 24, 2015, 12:43:22 AM »
Your opinion, NOT a fact! ::)

Floo, you wouldn't recognise a fact from a vision of a monk, or something!    ;)
BA.

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life.

It is my commandment that you love one another."