tec:
" You have been explaining it away... and I have not ignored the 'unschooled' comment. (though I dispute that the comment of itself means what you state it) My point was and still is:" Ok then, you dispute with what? Aside from saying you disagree with it, you have not given clear reason to dispute what seems to me reasonable of the people in that time, that they had levels of literacy but probably not one that would have allowed then the pen the NT.
I grant you this much: While I never said that the Bible says that they were illiterate, I did intimate that the Bible admits that they were illiterate. Here's the phrase I used: "The style is that of Greek writers and the apostles were illiterate (by the Bible's own admission)." The "admission" is based on the texts I already provided. But I didn't say the Bible says (literally) that they were illiterate. I also used phrases such as: "Still, there's no information regarding why a man who was likely illiterate could have authored" and "(fishermen, carpenters, etc) were not educated and most likely illiterate". I wouldn't use stronger language unless I had been there to witness it.
" It is written that at least one disciple was literate enough to write down his testimony". But nowhere it is written who that person is (although I think it would the Apostle John) and that this person had the skill to write to the caliber of the NT. If fact, the indications I've shown you point to the contrary while you cling to a single possibility for supporting the writing of the entire canon.
" some later wrote that testimony down". Who and when? Which specific manuscripts? Do we know their names?
" The book of John does not have to be written by the apostle John. But the 'disciple Jesus loved' - whoever that might be - is said to have written down his testimony ." Then how do we know it is the book of John? By the title? There is no title. I don't believe that either John the apostle or John the author (unless he does it indirectly) is mentioned in John the gospel. So, if some other person wrote it, it would not have been the one mentioned in John who simply "wrote stuff down" because it's obvious that the gospel of John is much more sophisticated and Jesus followers were not.
" But Luke was not an eye witness to Christ; he investigated and wrote down what others had witnessed ". I don't think you can discount Luke as not being an eye witness if he was one the followers of Jesus and an apostle. He states: " Now many have undertaken to compile an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us" Luke 1:1. I'm not saying that accounts of Christ were a-dime-a-dozen. But apparently they were "many". This may point to a much later time that gave writers the opportunity to compile accounts and write them down. It also suggests that Luke the writer was being earnest in setting things straight, compared to other writers. Even thought people told him stuff and he supposedly wrote them down, it doesn't matter anyway because the legitimacy of Luke as a writer can't be established from the book.
Although the writing is simpler and more matter-of-fact, it suggests another source, namely Q, for some of the accounts. That means it could have been compiled and written by someone else, not Luke. What this examination does is place doubt on the whole subject and makes us look elsewhere for support. What it does not do is for us to jump to a different conclusion simply because we don't directly arrive at the answer we desperatly need.
" First... why is it all or nothing? Why not a mixture of things that happened ?" Accordin to your statement, t hat would mean that some original writers wrote some of the canon and some other (third party) writers wrote the rest of the canon. OK. Who did it and how do we know that? Basically, you're saying again that for the possibility that one writer wrote things down, it's possible that a disciple wrote in the NT and other writers (not disciples) wrote the rest. It's like the game of horseshoes, when the horseshoe lands close enough to the stake to count, except that it landed near a totally different stake.
" ... how can you ignore one verse that states that one disciple did write down his testimony ?" The answer is: I didn't ignore it. We already discussed that one text that says the one Jesus "loved" most may indicate whether or not he was the writer of John the gospel. I also brought up the contradiction you face by saying that the disciple in question was not John but someone else while that would mean that John himself didn't write John the gospel and couldn't have according to Acts 4:13. I wrote about the glaring jump you make by assuming that if one disciple could write, that probably more disciples could write even though their station in life (according to known history) would not have afforded them the sophistication to write anything in the canon. If I didn't mention it before, let me say it now: You seem to reject the prevalent idea that (for traditional reasons or for any other reason), "John" has always been associated with writing his own gospel. Whether that was John the apostle of some other person, is still in question.
"Joseph of Arimathea?" Right. Here is where you make my point. Joseph was apparently a man of wealth—and probably a member of the Sanhedrin. His wealth is what would have put him in that top 1% of literate individuals who not only could write but probable wrote at the high level of prose. I don't know why you bring up his name since there's no indication that he ever wrote anything associated with the canon. If he could write and was a secret disciple of Jesus, it does not mean that his skills were common with the rest of Jesus followers.
" Does it have to be written by the eyewitness to have 'some sort of legitimacy'? " No. But it has to have some sort of relatively strong indication in order to be legitimate. It has to have corroboration and provenance (look that up). It has to have consensus from experts.
" The thing is, it wasn't the NT that people based their faith upon, or even the testimony of others. Those things just helped us to hear about Christ. But one must go to Him to know Him, to be taught by Him (the Spirit of Truth/Holy Spirit) ". So, are you saying that even without the help of the NT people would have found their faith in Christ? So, if one can find faith in Christ anyway, why does anyone need the NT, for help? But you say that help is OK but really not necessary. I just don't get you. But for the series of events that led me to meet my wife, I would never have met her. But, you seem to indicate, following your logic, that I would have met her anyway even if what led me to meet her hadn't happened. Damn, that almost leaves me speechless!
OK, you got me there. I said: "The ONLY identification of the author of the gospel of John is the disciple Jesus "loved" most." I meant to say "internal" indication within the work called The Gospel According to John or the entire NT. But what I originally said would still be true since there is no way to establish the identity of the apostle John or the writer of the Gospel of John. If you have such sources (verifiable sources), please help me adjust my understanding.
" Not all the disciples were peasants, Etude. Such as Joseph of Arimathea. " Fine, I already addressed that, just like not all the slaves in the 1800s were illiterate, with exceptions like Fredrick Douglas. But if you're going to hold to that (the slaves were not considered illiterate), you're going to have to come up with many more exceptions, just as you would for the disciples. Besides, you make my point that while Jesus' disciples were mostly from humble background, only those (like Joseph of Arimathea) were rich and therefore sufficiently educated to write to the level of the canon, which no evidence shows they did.
" That verse also has to be referring to illiteracy, rather than referring to being unschooled ". Why? Didn't you understand what unschooled meant in those days? What does unschooled mean now? Whether at home or at an institution, it means one or several of the following according the Merriam-Webster: "Synonyms: analphabetic, benighted, dark, illiterate, nonliterate, rude, simple, uneducated, uninstructed, unlearned, unlettered, unread, ignorant, untaught, untutored ." And yet, you insist on some other interpretation that could be, simply because you like it to be.
" It also does not mean that the 'disciple that jesus loved' is the one who wrote John... only that the one who wrote John referred to the written testimony of the 'one who Jesus loved'." Right. But if the one who wrote John was not John the apostle nor the one Jesus "loved", then who was he? Could he have been some other dude who a century later after the events decided to write this gospel in order to support some other view? Here's a summary I wrote in one review to explain the development of the canon:
"A religious divergence was taking place, which would pit one group against another, each with their own different set of “sacred” writings attributed to other apostles or disciples of Jesus. Therefore, it’s not surprising to find that there were other “sacred” epistles and evangels contending as members of the canon: the Gospel of Peter, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Gospel of Thomas, the Apocalypse of Paul and others. The different ideologies (the perceived theologies) of these groups created a religious battle of ideas that eventually led to one winner: the proto-Orthodox. That’s why the canon looks the way it does today. Had another contender won, we would have a very different Bible."
This is where the Apocrypha comes in. Our present day canon is a winner because many competing groups fought it out by using their own collection of documents that favored their particular theological views and only one had sufficient clout. You should read about those events some time. By comparison, you'll find that the books in the canon don't really have more weight than those of the Apocrypha.
"If the Spirit confirms to me something that i have read (or if something I read is corroborated by Him), then I can know that it is true". See, this is a continual problem with you. I know that the Spirit works for you because you tell me. But there is presently no possible way in this universe that anybody but you can confirm that. So, don't keep bringing it up as support for your views. You can still feel and have that, but it does no good to anyone else involved in the discussion.
"But we cannot explain everything... yet". Correct and let alone decide at any point prior that it is "natural" as you propense, especially when it defies the natural laws. So, you did miss the meaning of "natural" even if you say you didn't.
"If there are different realms Etude... would they not both still be natural?" Please read carefully, because I've already explained this and it didn't get through: They CAN both still be natural if they can be explained in terms of nature's laws, rules, observations, deductions and all the things in the purview of Nature. The "other" realm that rules you cannot be (I'm quoting myself here) "explored, tested, poked, examined or probed by any natural means." It lives in your head and no one else can access that. If you explain it, you can call it what you want, but it still fails that test for what we have already determined is "natural" and not supernatural.
"It is only supernatural until we have knowledge about it". Exactly. And if the knowledge never comes, it remains supernatural and a load of malarkey, which only gives us confirmation, after remaining so mysterious for a while, that it was crap to begin with. I don't understand why you bother to consider, from a logical point of view, something that could be but isn't (because you have no proof), and continue to insist that because it could be and because you feel it, it must certainly be. OK. So what does Jesus have to say about UFOs and the experimentation space aliens are conducting on his children?
" If you still think ["that you already think they were literate and were responsible for the writing of the canon"] ...after reading this post, then please read it again ". So, they weren't literate? Is that what you're suggesting now? It seems to me from that statement that you're refuting my point that you will always think the disciples were literate enough to write the canon no matter what. If you don't think so and want me to re-read your statements, I'll let you win. There's no point responding to your claims that they were literate and now saying that you didn't say that.
